validate_threads

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

The description states that the tool can apply close/idle actions when dry_run=False, implying mutation of thread state. However, annotations set destructiveHint=false, creating a contradiction. Per evaluation rules, score 1 is assigned for contradicting annotations, and annotation_contradiction is flagged.

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 a clear summary followed by categorized details. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then elaborates. While slightly lengthy, every sentence contributes value; no redundancy is present.

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 complexity (6 parameters, categorization logic) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient behavioral details. It covers all categories, conditions, and parameter interactions, making it complete for an agent to understand the tool's operation.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains the role of each parameter within the category logic (e.g., no_notes_days, stale_days, shipped_markers). It adds contextual meaning beyond the input schema, clarifying how parameters affect behavior and defaults.

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 tool performs heuristic triage of active threads, proposing or applying close/idle actions per defined categories. It uses specific verbs ('propose', 'apply') and resources ('threads'), and the categories are explicitly listed, making the purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools like close_thread or idle_thread.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, situations where this tool is preferred, or when not to use it. The purpose is implied but no direct comparison with siblings like close_thread or idle_thread is provided.

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