list_open_threads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context such as 'without changing them' (aligning with readOnlyHint) and characterizes the output as a 'raw thread list.' It does not detail pagination or return format, but since an output schema exists, that information is available elsewhere. The description complements annotations without redundancy or contradiction.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and then providing usage nuance. Every clause earns its place: the read-only guarantee, the filtering hint, and the explicit alternative to session_digest. No redundancy or 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?

For a read‑only list tool with three optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it lists, that it is non‑destructive, when to use it, and when to prefer an alternative. It omits nitty‑gritty details like default limit or pagination, but those are covered by the schema and the output schema. The presence of the output schema lowers the burden, making this reasonably complete.

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 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. It explicitly mentions filtering by 'project' and 'energy,' which correspond to project_slug and energy, but does not explain the limit parameter or the format of project_slug. Since limit is self-explanatory and energy has an enum, this partial coverage is adequate but not complete. The description adds some meaning beyond the schema's bare titles, but leaves the limit unaddressed.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'List unfinished threads without changing them.' It specifies the exact scope (unfinished threads) and reinforces read-only behavior, which distinguishes it from mutation siblings like pause_thread or dismiss_thread. The mention of 'raw thread list' further clarifies the nature of the output, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly provides when to use this tool vs. an alternative: 'Use session_digest when you want a session-start summary with reminders and resume context instead of the raw thread list.' It also advises filtering by project or energy for narrowing work, giving clear situational guidance. This is a model of usage direction.

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