canvas_discussion_entries

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description owes only supplementary context. It does add one useful trait, that replies are truncated to an initial subset, but leaves unstated how large that subset is and whether the page parameter pages entries or replies.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the primary scope stated first and the sibling pointer second. Nothing in it could be removed without losing routing or scope information.

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 tool with a fully documented schema and complete annotations, almost everything an agent needs to invoke it is present. The gap is the vague "initial replies" bound, which leaves the agent unable to predict whether returned content is partial and therefore whether a follow-up call to discussion_replies is required.

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%, with every parameter already documented, including raw, page, context_type enum and topic_id provenance. The description adds no meaning beyond that schema, so the baseline 3 applies rather than anything higher.

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?

"Read top-level discussion entries and initial replies" gives a specific verb and resource, and the second sentence explicitly separates it from canvas_discussion_replies. The only softness is that "initial replies" never says how many, so the exact scope of what comes back stays fuzzy.

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?

It names the alternative tool (discussion_replies) and the condition that selects it (needing complete paginated replies). That is clear routing guidance; what is missing is any when-not guidance around the top-level entries themselves, such as when to prefer canvas_discussion for topic metadata first.

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