canvas_discussion_replies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only that this is thread-scoped reading and where to source the id; it says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior, or whether nested replies beyond one level are included. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, a 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentences with zero filler: the first states the operation, the second states the id dependency. Nothing redundant and nothing buried.

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 6-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essential mechanics of what it fetches and where the required entry_id comes from. It leaves the agent to infer the result shape (threaded reply objects) and the meaning of the raw and page parameters, which matters slightly more given there is no output schema to describe the return.

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 context_type, context_id, topic_id, entry_id, page, and raw are all documented in the schema. The description merely restates the entry_id sourcing already present in the schema and adds no meaning for the page/bookmark or raw HTML/UTC semantics. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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: reads replies to a single discussion entry, scoped to threaded discussions. It clearly differs from canvas_discussion_entries (which supplies the ids) and from canvas_discussion. It stops short of a full 5 because it does not explicitly say it returns only child replies and not the top-level entry itself.

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 phrase 'for threaded discussions' and the instruction to take entry_id from canvas_discussion_entries imply the usage context: call this after listing entries to drill into a thread. There are no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives such as using canvas_discussion_entries for flat discussions.

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