list_threads

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation by referencing 'list', but does not specify behavior on empty threads list, error conditions, or the need for a valid session ID. It provides the GDB command analogy which adds some transparency.

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 a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose, which is front-loaded and efficient. It could be slightly more compact but it is not verbose.

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 presence of an output schema, return values are covered. However, the parameter 'session_id' is undocumented, and the description lacks context about the 'inferior' or session lifecycle. It is minimally sufficient for a simple list tool but has gaps.

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 must compensate, but it does not explain the 'session_id' parameter. The purpose of the parameter remains implicit; a user unfamiliar with the system would not know its role.

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 lists all threads with their current location, explicitly referencing the GDB command 'info threads'. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'select_thread' which selects a thread rather than listing.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like selecting a thread or examining backtrace. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for usage, such as requiring an active session.

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