Check Unresolved Threads

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only listing, but says nothing about scope (project-wide vs. depth-bounded), cost, or what “expired” means operationally — a notable gap given the max_depth/current_depth parameters hint at traversal behavior.

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?

It is a single short front-loaded phrase with no filler, which is efficient. But it is under-specified rather than truly concise, and the language mismatch with the English tool name and siblings adds friction.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation anywhere, this one-line description is insufficient. An agent cannot know what the depth parameters do or what shape the danger-signal results take.

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?

All three parameters (max_depth, project_id, current_depth) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. The schema fields most in need of explanation — the depth-traversal pair and project scoping — are entirely undocumented.

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 states a clear verb-plus-object (“list unresolved/expired foreshadowing”) and even characterizes the output as danger signals. However, it does not distinguish itself from the closely related sibling check_thread_health, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 statement of when to call this tool, what preconditions apply, or which sibling to reach for otherwise. The only implicit cue is that it surfaces problems, which is not the same as guidance.

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