thread_switch

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states a vague action. No information is given about side effects (e.g., whether this changes the active thread in a session, requires authentication, or returns data). For a mutating tool, this is insufficient.

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 concise at one sentence, but it is too brief given the tool's purpose. It could include a brief note on what switching implies without being verbose; currently it feels under-specified.

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?

Given the tool has one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It fails to convey important context such as success conditions or whether the switch is permanent or temporary, making it incomplete for an agent to use reliably.

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% with a single parameter (threadId) already described in the schema. The description adds no further meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate; it does not improve understanding 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?

The description 'Switch to a different thread' clearly states the verb 'switch' and the resource 'thread', distinguishing it from sibling tools like thread_create or thread_delete. However, it lacks specificity on what switching entails (e.g., activating the thread for further actions).

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 vs alternatives like project_switch or thread_create. The description does not mention prerequisites or conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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