Get Full Topic View

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds two non-obvious traits: rate-limit cost relative to alternatives and that all participant text is fenced as untrusted (a prompt-injection safety signal an agent must know). This is real value beyond structured fields.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core capability, then alternative comparison and safety note. Only mild redundancy is 'Read-only,' which restates readOnlyHint.

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, the description usefully says what comes back (all entries and nested replies) plus a safety note on content. It omits how max_entries truncation behaves for very large threads, leaving one gap for a bulk-fetch tool.

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 topic_id, course_id, and max_entries are already documented with sourcing hints. The description adds nothing about parameters, including how max_entries interacts with 'entire thread,' 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 and resource ('Get an entire discussion thread, all entries and nested replies') with the distinguishing scope 'in one request.' This clearly separates it from the paging siblings list_entries and list_entry_replies.

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?

Explicitly names list_entries as the alternative and gives the selection rule: this tool is 'much lighter on rate limits than paging through list_entries.' It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g., very large threads where max_entries matters).

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