debug_get_threads

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' suggests a read-only operation and the description is not misleading, but it does not disclose details such as whether an active session is required, return behavior, or failure conditions. For a simple getter, this is acceptable but minimal.

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 a single focused sentence that states the operation and object directly. There is no filler, and the key information is immediately accessible.

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 only one required parameter that is fully documented, the description is nearly complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The lack of output schema is not critical for a simple 'get all' verb, though a note about the returned thread data shape could have made it fully self-contained.

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 schema description coverage is 100%: session_id is described as 'Debug session ID' and marked required. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get all threads in the debuggee.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like debug_get_stack_trace, debug_get_variables, and debug_get_output, which target different aspects of the debugging session.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is for enumerating threads, but nothing explicitly states when this is the right choice over other debug introspection tools.

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