list_forums

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the scoping constraint (must be inside a course) and the taxonomy of forum types, but says nothing about result size, pagination, or what identifying fields come back.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the examples earning their place by disambiguating 'foro' in an LMS context. No waste.

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 one-parameter read-only list tool with full schema description coverage and readOnlyHint annotations, the definition covers what is needed to call it. Return-shape details are the only real gap, and they are minor since no output schema exists but the resource is self-evident.

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% and the single course_id parameter is fully documented in the schema itself. The description echoes the course scoping ('dentro de una materia') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (listar) and resource (foros) scoped to a course, and the parenthetical examples (avisos, novedades, consultas) clarify what counts as a forum. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_forum_discussions or list_assignments, so the sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: you call it to see the forums within a given course. There is no statement of when to prefer get_forum_discussions or get_discussion_posts instead, nor any prerequisites (enrollment, permissions) for the call.

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