open_thread

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It notes the return value ('Returns new ID') but omits side effects, permissions, or prerequisites. For a creation tool, more transparency is needed.

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 exceedingly concise: one sentence for purpose, two for parameter guidance. Every word earns its place, and the key action is front-loaded.

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 simplicity (2 params, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, parameter constraints, and return value. It lacks details on error conditions or prerequisites but is largely complete for a straightforward creation tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the 'question' parameter (terse, 5-15 words) and 'parent_id' (optional with example). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema types.

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 action ('Open a thread') and the resource (a thread with a question). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like 'close_thread' by specifying the creation aspect and optional parent linkage.

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 usage tips ('question should be terse 5-15 words', 'parent_id optional') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'respond' or 'note'. No when-not-to-use guidance.

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