list_threads

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'list', which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose any additional traits such as whether the operation is safe, idempotent, or has rate limits. It lacks details about the returned data or potential side effects.

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 sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the key action. However, it is slightly too brief given the lack of annotations and output schema, missing some contextual details that could be added without losing conciseness.

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 tool has one parameter and no output schema, and the description does not explain what the return data contains (e.g., thread IDs, metadata, ordering). It also omits any mention of pagination or filtering options, making it incomplete for an agent to correctly interpret the results.

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?

There is only one parameter, channel_id, and the description does not add any meaning beyond the schema field name. The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining the format or required source of the channel_id, but it simply says 'a channel' without elaboration.

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 lists threads (both active and archived) within a channel, which is a specific verb+resource combination. This distinguishes it from siblings like archive_thread, unarchive_thread, create_thread, and delete_thread.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that it is for obtaining thread IDs before archiving/unarchiving or that it lists all threads without filtering by user or date.

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