open_thread

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

Annotations are neutral (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false). The description adds that it returns a new ID, but does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, or thread lifecycle. Minimal but adequate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with 'Open a thread', directly state the action and parameter constraints without waste.

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 the simple tool with output schema (not shown), the description covers the return value and key parameters. It lacks error handling or prerequisites but is sufficient for a straightforward operation.

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 has 0% description coverage, yet the description fully explains both parameters: question must be 5-15 words, parent_id is optional with example format. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens a thread, with specific constraints on the question length and optional parent_id for child threads. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like close_thread.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'ask' or 'respond'. The description implies usage for starting threads but does not provide exclusions or context.

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