thread_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation and 'lifetime' hints at cumulative rather than point-in-time metrics, which is useful; but there is no disclosure of auth requirements, scope limits, or what confidence separation entails. An output schema exists, so return-format details are rightly omitted.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter read tool, though 'confidence-separated' could be replaced with plainer language that earns its place more clearly.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials. What is missing is any usage context or clarification of the 'confidence-separated' terminology, leaving the agent with gaps in interpretation.

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?

One parameter (thread_id) with 0% schema description coverage. The name is largely self-explanatory and the description scopes it to 'one thread', but it adds no syntax, format, or sourcing guidance beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 (read) and resource (lifetime token metrics scoped to one thread), so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like record_usage or workspace_status. However, the modifier 'confidence-separated' is unexplained jargon that leaves the exact metric breakdown ambiguous.

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 indication of when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as workspace_status or record_usage, nor any prerequisites. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the single required parameter.

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