aula_get_threads

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It adds that full message history is included, which is a useful behavior detail. However, it lacks information about potential large payloads, pagination, or any side effects. It's adequate but not rich.

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?

One sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and includes the key benefit ('full message history'). No wasted words.

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?

The description conveys what the tool returns and the filter concept. With no output schema, it would benefit from more detail on the response structure or potential limits, but for a simple read-only list tool with one parameter, it's reasonably complete.

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 100% (days_back is fully described). The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gets all message threads with recent activity and includes full message history. The verb 'Get' plus specific resource 'message threads' and scope 'recent activity' distinguishes it from sibling tools like aula_get_thread (singular) and aula_get_messages.

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?

The description implies usage for listing active threads via 'recent activity' but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria. There is no 'when not to use' guidance, but the context and sibling tool names indirectly suggest it's for bulk retrieval vs. single-thread access.

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