work_on_thread

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavioral effect: highlighting the thread as in-progress in the UI. However, it does not mention whether the action is reversible, if it affects other threads, or if it triggers notifications. More transparency about side effects would be beneficial.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that directly conveys the core action. No unnecessary words, well front-loaded. It efficiently uses 13 words to describe the tool's function.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is minimal. It does not explain return values, error cases, or prerequisites. With 13 sibling tools, more context to differentiate would be helpful, especially regarding the relationship to 'start_working' and 'resume_thread'.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter 'thread_id' has no description in the schema, and the description does not elaborate on its format or meaning (beyond 'specifc thread'). Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but does not. An explanation that 'thread_id' is the unique identifier of the thread to mark as in-progress would improve clarity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to tell the UI that the user is working on a specific thread, marking it as in-progress. The verb 'tell the UI' and resource 'thread' are specific, and it is distinguishable from siblings like 'start_working' which may be broader. However, it could more explicitly differentiate from 'start_working'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage when wanting to indicate work on a thread, but lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., must have the board open) or exclusions (e.g., not for starting general work). Sibling tools like 'start_working' and 'resume_thread' exist without any comparative notes.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.