ed_list_threads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds filter and sort context, but this largely mirrors the schema enums rather than exposing new behavioral traits like pagination handling or default return behavior.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose and key options without any waste. Every word adds value.

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 captures the primary functionality (listing threads with filtering and sorting) and is complemented by a rich schema with detailed parameter descriptions and safe-read annotations. It omits pagination and response_format, but these are documented in the schema, making the description sufficient for basic understanding.

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 description adds natural-language meaning to filter_type (unread/unanswered/starred) and sort (new/old/top/hot), which lack schema descriptions. However, it does not explain limit, offset, category, or response_format, which are already covered by the schema. Overall, it partially compensates for schema gaps but is not exhaustive.

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 this lists discussion threads (讨论列表) for an Ed course, and mentions the available filters and sort options. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ed_get_thread (single thread) and ed_search_threads (search).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ed_search_threads or ed_get_thread. It simply states capabilities without contextual positioning or exclusions.

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