validate_threads

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains the heuristic logic, categories, dry_run behavior, and that idle threads are never touched. It transparently describes the decision rules and input dependencies.

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 well-structured with clear bullet-like categories and a note about idle threads. It is concise (roughly 100 words) and front-loads the key action. Slight redundancy in 'shipped_markers' explanation could be trimmed.

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?

The description covers the tool's logic thoroughly but omits any mention of the output or return value, which is relevant since an output schema exists. However, the description is complete for explaining the heuristic process.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains how parameters like no_notes_days and stale_days are used in rules, but does not describe each parameter individually beyond the schema. The description adds moderate value.

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 a specific verb ('triage') and resource ('active threads'), and explains the two modes (propose/apply). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'close_thread' and 'idle_thread' by focusing on batch heuristic classification.

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 automated triage but does not explicitly contrast with manual tools (close_thread, idle_thread). No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided, though the categories and dry_run flag give implicit usage context.

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