get_discussion_thread

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the tree is cached server-side and includes participants, entry ratings and unread flags. It stops short of saying how stale the cache can be or whether a refresh is possible.

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, front-loaded with the action and its output shape, then the follow-up tool. Slight overlap between 'full threaded view' and 'the nested view' but nothing is wasted.

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 simple two-parameter read with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, payload contents and the natural next step. The one real gap is the unmentioned required parameters, which matters because the schema documents nothing about them.

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 both parameters (course_id, topic_id) are bare integers with no titles beyond their names. The description never mentions either parameter, so an agent gets no confirmation that topic_id is scoped to course_id or what a valid topic id looks like; it relies entirely on the self-explanatory naming.

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 and resource ('Get a discussion topic's full threaded view') and immediately scopes the result as the cached server-side tree with participants, ratings, unread entries and nesting. That is clearly distinguishable from list_discussions (which lists topics) and from flatten_discussion_thread (which post-processes this output).

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 explicit chaining guidance: use flatten_discussion_thread on the returned view to get a flat depth-annotated list, which tells the agent when this tool is the wrong choice. It does not say when to prefer this over list_discussions or note any prerequisites such as enrollment/access to the course.

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