discord_list_threads

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context the annotations lack: only unarchived threads are returned, and archived threads are explicitly excluded, which an agent must know to interpret results correctly.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by return format and the exclusion note. Three short lines, zero padding, each sentence carrying distinct information.

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?

With a rich schema (100% coverage), full annotations, and an output schema present, the definition is nearly complete. It omits any mention of result limits or pagination for servers with many threads, which is a minor gap given the otherwise strong coverage.

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%, so guild_id, channel_id, and response_format are fully documented in the schema (including the .env fallback for guild_id). The description confirms channel_id narrows to a parent channel but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (threads) with a precise scope qualifier (active/unarchived). The optional channel scoping distinguishes it from a generic thread enumeration and from sibling channel tools like discord_list_channels.

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 via the channel_id filter ('optionally only under one channel') but never states when to prefer this tool over siblings such as discord_list_channels or discord_get_channel. No explicit when-not guidance is given.

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