List forum threads

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description earns credit beyond them by disclosing the response shape (each thread carries a first-post excerpt) and by flagging that titles, messages and usernames are untrusted user-generated content to be treated as data — a genuinely useful behavioural warning for a read tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what it does, then when to use it, then the injection-safety caveat. No repetition of annotations or schema fields, and nothing that fails to earn its place.

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 15-parameter, all-optional list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, typical use cases and one important aspect of the return payload (post excerpt). It is largely sufficient, though a note on pagination defaults or the practical meaning of page/limit results would close the remaining gap.

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 all 15 parameters are already self-documenting, which sets the baseline at 3. The description only loosely gestures at the filter/sort dimensions (author, prefix, tag, order) and adds no syntax, default or interaction detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource (lists threads) and adds scope detail: filters, sorting, pagination, plus an excerpt of the first post. It does not, however, differentiate itself from near neighbours such as forum_search or forum_list_tagged_threads, so an agent still needs to infer which listing tool fits.

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?

Names concrete use cases: browsing newest or most discussed threads in a section, or threads by a specific author, prefix or tag. That is clear contextual guidance, but it stops short of the higher bar — no when-not-to-use and no explicit pointer to an alternative tool (e.g. forum_search for keyword lookup).

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