close_thread

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the outcome length constraint, but fails to state whether closing is irreversible, what happens to associated data, or any authorization requirements. Significant gaps remain.

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, clear sentence with no redundant information. It is appropriately concise but could benefit from slight restructuring or additional context.

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's simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the existence of an output schema, the description is still incomplete. It lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and any reference to return values or side effects, which are needed for a self-contained definition.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It adds the 5-15 word constraint for outcome, which is not in the schema. However, it does not explain the thread_id parameter or provide additional meaning beyond the schema titles.

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 'Close a thread' with a specific verb and resource. It also adds the constraint of a 5-15 word outcome, which clarifies the expected format. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like open_thread or idle_thread, leaving room for ambiguity in selection.

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 guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., thread must be open) or any context for use.

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