list_open_threads

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

With no annotations, the description alone must convey behavioral traits. It indicates the tool is read-only ('visible') and lists unresolved items, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, sorting, or what 'visible' means. The mix of item types is mentioned but not explained.

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 concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. However, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points) to break down the list items or parameter usage. It is not verbose, but could better organize information for clarity.

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?

The description is incomplete for a list tool without an output schema. It does not specify the output format, structure of returned items, or whether the optional chapter parameter filters results. An agent lacks essential context to interpret the tool's response or use it effectively.

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?

The input schema has two parameters (project_dir required, chapter optional) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what these parameters represent, how to use them, or any constraints. For example, it is unclear if 'chapter' filters the list, and 'project_dir' lacks format or meaning.

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 clearly states the tool lists 'visible unresolved plot debts, chapter contracts, conflicts, and the latest handoff,' which is a specific set of resources. The verb 'list' is precise, and the resource is well-defined, differentiating it from sibling tools that focus on building, diffing, or checking other aspects.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_facts, list_agent_activity). There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the verb 'list.'

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