Get Discussions

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description only needs to add operational context. It does so by disclosing how the result set expands or narrows with each parameter combination. It omits pagination, result-size, and permission behavior, which keeps it out of the top tier.

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?

Four sentences with zero waste: purpose, usage triggers, then the three parameter combinations in increasing specificity. Front-loaded and scannable; nothing repeats the schema verbatim.

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?

With no output schema and only three documented parameters, the description carries the return-value burden and does: it states that forumId returns topics and posts and that topicId returns all posts. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly at each level of specificity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the interaction between forumId and topicId in terms of returned content, not just the 'requires forumId' constraint the schema states. It adds meaning rather than restating field text.

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 ('Fetch discussion board content for a course') and enumerates the sub-resources covered (forums, topics, posts). The resource is clearly distinct from every sibling tool (announcements, assignments, content, roster), so an agent can select it without cross-referencing schemas.

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 user-intent triggers ('discussion boards, forum posts, class discussions') and a precise escalation ladder: courseId alone, add forumId, add forumId+topicId. It stops short of naming an alternative tool to use instead (e.g. get_announcements for announcements), so it is clear but not fully comparative.

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