Get chat threads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description need not restate safety. It adds value by disclosing sort order ('newest first'), that reply counts are included, and that paging is done via the `before` cursor. These are behavioral details beyond the 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?

Two concise sentences that immediately state the purpose and the key paging mechanism. No fluff, and the most useful details are front-loaded.

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 listing tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers sorting, reply counts, and paging. It is adequate for an agent to call it correctly, though it does not describe the response shape beyond reply counts, which is acceptable given the lack of an output 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?

Schema description coverage is 67%, moderate. The description mentions paging via `before`, which duplicates the schema's parameter description, and does not clarify `limit` beyond what schema constraints already convey. It adds minimal new meaning, so it does not fully compensate for the moderate coverage.

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 states a clear purpose: retrieving chat threads for a publication, newest first, with reply counts. It is specific about the resource and verb, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_chats or read_chat_thread, so it falls short of a 5.

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 context ('in a publication's chat') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of list_chats for finding publications or read_chat_thread for reading a single thread, so guidance is only implicit.

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