List exported threads

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), yet the description still adds behavior: results are ordered newest first and include comment counts, and it reveals that the primary output is a thread id used by other tools. This is useful context beyond structured fields, though nothing is said about pagination or result limits.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler. The resource and ordering lead, and the actionable workflow instruction follows. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a zero-required-param listing tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: what is listed, the ordering, the presence of comment counts, and the next step. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100% for the single optional `query` parameter, so the schema already documents that it filters by title substring. The description adds nothing to parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 names a specific verb (Lists) and resource (Reddit and Hacker News threads exported via Comment Scraper), and adds scope details: newest first, with comment counts. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from read_thread by stating it returns thread ids to be used with that sibling.

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?

"Call this first to get a thread id" gives explicit sequencing guidance relative to read_thread, so an agent knows when this tool is the entry point. It stops short of naming exclusions or comparing against search_comments/get_comment, but the workflow positioning is clear.

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