List document annotation threads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the authorization class ('board_or_agent'), which is useful context. However, no further behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, output format) are described.

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 concise at two sentences, but the first sentence merely restates the title. The second sentence adds the HTTP method and authorization class. It is not wasteful, but could be more efficient by combining the information.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. However, for a list operation, it lacks any mention of sorting, filtering, or pagination. The authorization class is a useful addition, but overall the description is minimal.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description does not explain what 'id' and 'key' represent. It is inferred from context that 'id' is an issue ID and 'key' is a document key, but this is not explicit. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'List document annotation threads', which is a specific verb+resource. The sibling tools include a POST for creation and a GET with thread_id for a specific thread, so it distinguishes itself by the 'List' verb and the absence of a thread_id parameter.

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 (e.g., the POST version or the GET for a specific thread). There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' advice.

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