List Dialogue Threads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it specifies the exact fields in the summaries, sorting by most recently updated, default limit, and pagination. This provides strong transparency without contradicting the structured signals.

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 and well-structured: it leads with the main purpose, followed by return details, an Args list, and a Returns note. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the formatting makes it easy to scan. No redundant or vague content.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains return values (thread summaries with specific fields, pagination), sorting behavior, and parameter defaults. It covers all key aspects needed for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, and it is consistent with the annotations and schema.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the description's Args section largely duplicates the schema. It adds no new semantic meaning. There is a minor inconsistency ('offset' described as 'number' but schema says 'integer'), but this does not enhance understanding, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 conversation threads within a project' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like dialogue_read_thread by focusing on listing multiple threads with summaries rather than reading a single thread. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (listing threads within a project, optional status filter, pagination) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use dialogue_search instead. It falls short of a 5 because it lacks direct comparison or when-not-to-use guidance.

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