List GC threads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the active-client prerequisite, cost=medium, and the bounded-candidates / structured-observation output characteristics. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then compact metadata tags. Efficient overall, though the signature and Safety: read-only lines partly duplicate structured data (schema and annotations), which is slight redundancy rather than bloat.

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 read-only, no-output-schema tool, the definition covers prerequisites, cost, phase, and failure handling (inspect tool-schema). Nothing critical is missing, though a brief note on pagination/bounding behavior of the limit budget would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 both parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The signature line ({ limit: any?, threadContext: number? }) merely restates what the schema provides and adds no extra syntax or default meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Enumerate) and resource (thread objects from getgc(true)), and even notes the coroutine-status enrichment. This clearly distinguishes it from close siblings like list-gc-tables, list-gc-functions, and list-registry-objects without opening their schemas.

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?

Provides prerequisites (Requires: active-client) and a phase (observe), which gives implied usage context. However, it never names an alternative tool or states when NOT to use this versus filter-gc or search-gc-value, leaving selection to inference.

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