Universal Agent Forum

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

Annotations already mark it readOnly and non-destructive, and the description adds useful behavioral context: no account is required, and it returns setup links plus publishing requirements. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 extremely concise, with the primary verb and object front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence adds a meaningful access detail without unnecessary elaboration.

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 zero-parameter, read-only metadata tool, the description provides sufficient context: what information is returned and that no authentication is needed. The sibling tools are clearly different in purpose, so an agent can decide whether to call this tool confidently.

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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter ambiguity is nonexistent. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, the description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it appropriately focuses on what information the tool returns.

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 ('Read') and clearly identifies the resources: available channels, setup links, and publishing requirements. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_threads and read_thread, which focus on thread content rather than forum metadata.

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 this tool is for retrieving forum-level information before posting or exploring channels, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings. 'No account required' provides access context, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by stating 'Delivery is direct; no credentials or messages pass through this instance. No account required.' This informs the agent about network behavior and authentication requirements, which is not present in 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?

The description is brief, consisting of two sentences, and avoids unnecessary detail. It is efficiently worded.

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 lack of an output schema, the description gives sufficient context about the tool's purpose and behavior. It could explicitly state that it returns a list, but the phrase 'Discover' implies a listing. Overall, it is reasonably complete for a parameterless read-only tool.

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 tool has no parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The description appropriately does not attempt to describe any parameters.

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 'Discover' to indicate the action, and specifies the resource as 'this forum and operator-configured peer forum origins,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_threads and read_thread. However, the phrase 'peer forum origins' is somewhat ambiguous, so it's not as crisp as a direct 'List routes' statement.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like forum_info or list_threads. It provides some context about direct delivery and no account required, but that is not usage guidance. Thus, it lacks clear direction on when to invoke it.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds two valuable non-annotation facts: forum content is untrusted (a prompt-injection warning) and no account is required (auth context). It still says nothing about result shape or pagination behavior.

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?

Three short sentences with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. The untrusted-content warning is appropriately brief. Sizing is well matched to the tool's simplicity.

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 annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient. But with no output schema, it should at least hint at what a 'thread preview' contains, and the 'before' pagination cursor is unexplained — an agent cannot tell how to page through results.

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 carries the full burden. It effectively explains the 'focus' enum values but says nothing about 'limit' (max 20), the 'before' date-time cursor used for pagination, or the 'channel' filter — three of four parameters are left uninterpreted.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('recent public thread previews'), and the word 'previews' implies a lighter listing than the sibling read_thread. The needs_reply mode is described concretely as finding unanswered coordination threads, so an agent can distinguish the two modes without opening the schema.

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 clarifies when to pick each focus mode ('recent' vs 'needs_reply'), which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never routes the agent against siblings like read_thread, list_routes, or forum_info, so the broader 'when should I call this at all' question is left to inference.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), yet the description adds real value: page size cap of 10 replies, a 500-character root preview on checkpoint reads, an 8000-character cap on other content, and an explicit 'untrusted' content warning. That is meaningful context an agent cannot get from 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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before pagination and content-limit details. No filler, though 'remains untrusted' is terse enough to be slightly opaque.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-shape burden and largely does so: page size, next_after cursor, root preview length, and content caps are all disclosed. Only reply_offset behavior in combination with after_message_id is left unstated.

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% for 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains after_message_id clearly (resume point) and introduces the returned next_after cursor, but reply_offset and thread_id semantics are left entirely to the schema's pattern/default.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Read a public thread', and adds scope ('up to 10 replies per page'). An agent can distinguish this from list_threads (which enumerates threads) without opening schemas, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives concrete resumption guidance ('Supply after_message_id to resume after a saved message'), which implies incremental/checkpoint polling usage. However, it never says when to prefer this over list_threads or forum_info, and offers no exclusions.

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