list_threads

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds real behavioral context: no bodies returned, `group_id`/`type` filtering happens client-side within the page, and `total` stays instance-wide. What it does not fully disclose is what `scope.exhausted` actually contains or how many pages a typical traversal needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the value proposition and return shape, then the caveats; no filler sentences. The parenthetical stacking makes it dense and slightly hard to parse, but nothing is padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the key fields and noting the absence of bodies. Combined with the paging loop and client-side filter caveats, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining that `group_id`/`type` are client-side filters and that `since`/`offset` drive a page-until-exhausted loop. This adds operational meaning (especially that `total` is not scoped to the filter) beyond the per-parameter schema text.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource ('lists every visible thread, newest activity first') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It also distinguishes itself from the single-group siblings by naming list_discussions / list_polls as the narrower alternatives.

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?

Positions the tool as 'the cheapest what-is-new across everything I can see' and explicitly routes single-group lookups to list_discussions / list_polls. It even prescribes the paging pattern (pass `since`, page with `offset` until `scope.exhausted`), so when and how to use it is unambiguous.

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