threads_list

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

No annotations exist, so the description must bear the full transparency burden. It only states it lists threads without mentioning what information is returned, side effects, or read-only nature.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, appropriate for a simple parameterless tool.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally complete but lacks details like what thread attributes are returned; it could benefit from more context.

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?

With 0 parameters, the schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds no parameter info, but the baseline for zero params is 4 per guidelines.

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 'List all threads in the debuggee' is a specific verb+resource pair that clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like breakpoint_list or evaluate, which have different purposes.

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 usage guidance is provided; the tool's purpose is implied but there is no mention of when to use it versus alternatives like debug_state or stacktrace_get.

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