list_discussions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral detail — that each topic carries unread_count indicating new activity — which goes beyond annotations. It does not mention pagination or result limits, so the addition is modest.

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 purpose and then the filter guidance; nothing is redundant. The stray line breaks are cosmetic and do not harm readability.

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?

The tool is simple (two params, one required) and an output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out — yet the description still explains the key field unread_count. What remains missing is any cross-reference to the announcement and thread siblings, which matters given the overlap.

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 carry parameter meaning. It does explain only_announcements (filter to announcements, with the literal True), but course_id is never described beyond its name. That covers one of two parameters, adequate but incomplete for a zero-coverage 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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'List discussion topics in a course.' An agent can immediately tell this is a read/list operation over discussion topics. It stops short of naming the close sibling list_announcements, which overlaps with the only_announcements filter described here.

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 one concrete usage cue: 'Pass only_announcements=True to filter to announcements.' However, it never explains when to use this versus list_announcements (which appears to do the same thing) or get_discussion_thread for reading a single thread. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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