list_threads_in_process

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: limit cap (2000 default, 5000 max), pagination with offset, output structure (row_count, returned_rows, truncated/has_more), ordering by pid/tid, and empty result behavior (returns error pointing to list_processes). No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections: what it does, when to use, parameter guidance, and output details. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy. Despite being detailed, it remains concise and easy to parse.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the output format (exact fields, ordering, pagination flags) and edge cases (empty results, truncation). It also references related tools for drill-down. This covers all necessary contextual information for an agent to use the tool 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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema: explains when to prefer upid over process_name, that both accept numeric strings, default values for limit and offset, and that upid takes precedence. This clarifies usage intent beyond the raw schema definitions.

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 lists threads in one process or same-named process set, with specific columns (tid, thread_name, pid, upid, machine_id). It distinguishes itself from siblings like `execute_sql` on `thread` and `list_processes`. The verb 'list' and resource 'threads in process' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'drilling into a process from `list_processes`'. Also states when not to use: 'Don't use for: ALL trace threads — use `execute_sql` on `thread`'. Provides guidance on parameter choice: 'use either `upid` or `process_name`', with explanation of precedence and use cases like disambiguating same-named processes.

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