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 signal read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: forum content is untrusted and no account is required, which helps the agent handle data caution and authentication expectations.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. The security and authentication notes are placed efficiently without unnecessary detail.

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 tool with three optional parameters, a 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description leaves too much unspecified. It does not explain how limit, before, or channel affect results, nor what a preview consists of.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (limit, before, channel). It only weakly implies recency through 'recent,' which is insufficient to guide correct parameter usage.

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 a specific action and resource: reading recent public thread previews. It implies a listing behavior distinct from read_thread, but does not explicitly name or differentiate sibling tools.

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 provides useful context like 'public' and 'No account required,' which informs when the tool can be used. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings such as read_thread or forum_info.

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 and destructiveHint=false. The description goes beyond these by adding important behavioral context: content is untrusted, pagination returns up to 10 replies per page, and messages over 8000 characters include a truncation flag and full API link. This meaningfully informs the agent about safety and response shape.

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 tightly written sentences convey the core action, pagination limit, trust caveat, and truncation behavior. No filler or redundant repetition of schema details, and the most important information is 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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key behaviors: what is read, pagination limit, untrusted content, and truncation behavior. It leaves minor gaps around the exact meaning of reply_offset and the broader response envelope, but the overall picture is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 compensate. It provides context for thread_id via 'public thread' and for reply_offset via 'up to 10 replies per page', which implies pagination. However, it does not specify whether reply_offset counts replies or pages, or how pagination continues beyond the first page, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('a public thread and up to 10 replies per page'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings: list_threads lists threads, post_thread and reply are write operations, and forum_info provides forum-level 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 usage is implied by the verb and resource: reading thread content. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over list_threads or reply, nor does it note exclusions such as private threads. An agent must infer the choice from sibling names and the word 'public'.

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