triage_threads

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

The description explicitly states the tool does not auto-archive anything, which is important behavioral information. It also reveals the scoring formula and condition for recommendations. However, without annotations, it does not explicitly declare if the tool is read-only or modifies state, though 'return' and 'does not auto-archive' imply a read operation.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a purpose: first states main function and formula, second adds condition with recommendation, third clarifies no auto-archive. No redundant information. Front-loaded with purpose.

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 explains key behavior and non-mutation but does not describe the return format or fields (e.g., thread details, scores, recommendation). Given no output schema, more details on output shape would improve completeness. However, it covers the essential triage aspects.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal context beyond schema: it explains that current_domain_tags are for tag_match scoring and omitting scores by age only. The limit parameter is not elaborated beyond schema defaults. Overall, description does not significantly augment the schema.

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 returns open threads ranked by urgency using a specific formula (age_pressure + tag_match + touch_penalty). It also provides a condition for threads >30 days old with no recent touches, giving a recommendation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_open_threads which likely just list threads without ranking.

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 implies usage for triaging open threads by urgency but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_open_threads, archive_exchange, or resolve_thread. There are no when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations.

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