debugger_threads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. Beyond that, the description only hints at a scope restriction ("bounded"), without saying whether the session must exist, whether threads are listed only when paused, or whether the list is filtered by the debug session — meaningful behavioral gaps for a debugger call.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasteful. However, its brevity is achieved by omission rather than economy — the one sentence spends its words on an opaque adjective ("bounded") instead of actionable context.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format needn't be described. Still, for a tool requiring a session_id in a debugger toolset, the definition leaves the agent without any of the essentials — session prerequisite, pause-state assumption, and the meaning of a bounded thread — which is inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and neither of the two parameters is mentioned: session_id (required) is never explained, nor where it comes from, and the optional timeout is undocumented in both schema and description. The description provides no compensating meaning for an undocumented required parameter.

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?

"List" is a clear verb and "thread identities" a clear resource, so the general intent (enumerate threads) is understandable. But "bounded thread identities" is unexplained jargon and nothing distinguishes it from nearby siblings like debugger_stack, debugger_scopes, or debugger_get — an agent can't tell what a "bounded" thread is or why it differs from a stack frame listing.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no statement that a session_id is required, no mention that threads typically only appear while a session is paused, and no pointer to an alternative sibling for related data. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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