Forum discussions

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, it discloses result caps (5 discussions per forum, up to 5 forums), announcement-forum filtering, and partial-failure behavior ('a forum the school server will not open is named at the end and the rest still shows'). It also lists the fields returned, so the agent knows what evidence it will get before calling.

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 body is front-loaded and dense with useful facts, but the example question 'What are people discussing in the Networking Basics forum?' is stated twice, once at the opening and again at the end, which is pure redundancy. The chatty question framing also delays the actual verb-and-resource statement.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, selection rules, truncation limits, exclusions, returned fields, and degraded-response behavior. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to interpret a partial result.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal meaning: it clarifies that forum_name selects a single forum via a partial-name match, but course_id provenance is already stated in the schema and no match semantics (case, ambiguity, multiple matches) are explained.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Lists the latest discussions in the forums of one course') and enumerates the returned fields. It also distinguishes itself from get_announcements explicitly, so an agent can separate it from the closest sibling without opening either schema.

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 clear context for use and one explicit exclusion ('Announcement forums are left out, use get_announcements for those'). It does not address the other obvious alternative, get_forum_posts, so the agent has no stated rule for choosing between reading a forum's discussion list and reading a discussion's posts.

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