Listar threads e posts de forum

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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already declaring the safety profile, the description adds genuine context beyond annotations: the default to active threads, the archived override, and the returned fields (id, name, author, message count, last activity), which matter because there is no output schema. Pagination behavior is left to the schema.

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?

Two dense sentences with zero waste: the first covers purpose, scope, and returned fields; the second covers the forum-thread subtlety and the follow-up tool. Information is front-loaded and nothing is padded.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields and the default/override behaviors. For a 5-parameter read-only listing tool this is nearly complete, with only pagination semantics left entirely to the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by clarifying that channelId can point at a forum thread as well as a text channel ("leia com read_messages channelId=<thread>") and by restating the archived toggle's effect. This goes beyond the raw schema descriptions.

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 ("Lista") and resource (threads/posts of a text channel or forum), and explicitly notes that forum posts ARE threads, which disambiguates the resource from siblings like list_channels. The default active vs archived=true scope makes the boundary clear without opening the schema.

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?

Gives conditional usage for archived listing ("archived=true para arquivados") and routes the agent to the correct alternative for reading contents ("leia com read_messages channelId=<thread>"). It does not, however, state when to prefer this over list_channels or other listing tools, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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