List message threads

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

The readOnlyHint annotation covers the main side-effect concern, and the description adds the authenticated-account scope. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, return format, or any other runtime behavior beyond the annotation.

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 with no redundancy or extraneous information. It communicates the core resource and scope efficiently.

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 is too sparse to be fully actionable: it omits pagination semantics, what the response contains, and how this list relates to sibling tools like get_thread. Given the minimal input schema and lack of output schema, more context would be needed for a complete tool description.

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 only parameter, page, has no description in the input schema, and the tool description does not mention it at all. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description was expected to compensate but does not.

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 title 'List message threads' provides the verb, and the description identifies the resource as conversation threads scoped to the authenticated account. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_thread, send_message, and thread_action, though the description itself is a noun phrase rather than a full action statement.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_thread for a single thread or thread_action for thread operations. No explicit usage conditions or exclusions are provided.

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