List discussion topics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the 'metadata only' qualifier, which clarifies that the tool does not return full discussion content — useful context beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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 one short sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the qualifier 'metadata only'. There is zero filler; every word contributes.

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 list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know to invoke it correctly. It could mention that no pagination is needed or that the result is an array, but this is not essential given the lack of output schema. Slightly incomplete because it doesn't hint at what the response looks like (e.g., array of topic objects), but overall sufficient.

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 single parameter courseId is fully described in the schema (coverage 100%), so the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, giving the baseline 3.

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+resource ('List discussion topics') and adds a scope qualifier ('in a course') plus a useful behavioral qualifier ('metadata only'). This clearly distinguishes it from content-fetching tools like canvas_get_discussion_view, even without naming them.

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 gives the primary use (listing topics) but provides no guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, when it's not appropriate, or any exclusions. While the 'metadata only' qualifier hints at a difference, it doesn't explicitly state 'use this when you need only the index, not the full discussion content'.

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