idle_thread

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the thread may return and auto-revives on next note(), but doesn't detail side effects (e.g., state preservation, message queue handling).

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?

Two concise sentences without fluff. Front-loaded with core action ('Mark thread idle') followed by auto-revival hint.

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 single required parameter and simple action, the description is fairly complete. It covers the main behavior and lifecycle. However, it could mention that the thread must exist and be active, and clarify return value usage (though output schema exists).

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 0% for thread_id description. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name, leaving the agent with no guidance on format, source, or constraints.

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 'Mark thread idle (paused, may return)' uses a specific verb (mark) and resource (thread) with clear state (idle/paused). It distinguishes from siblings like close_thread by implying a non-permanent state.

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 implies usage for pausing threads that may revive, and mentions auto-revival on next note(). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with close_thread or state when not to use (e.g., for permanent termination).

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