List Group Discussions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so 'Read-only' is largely redundant. What the description adds is the return shape (titles and unread counts), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema, but pagination behavior via the limit parameter is never addressed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then a safety note, then the alternative. Nothing is padded and nothing repeats beyond a one-word redundant 'Read-only'.

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 two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description covers scope, return contents and the write-path sibling. The only meaningful gap is pagination/limit behavior, which matters since there is no output schema to clarify list size semantics.

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%: group_id is documented as a numeric student group ID sourced from list_my_groups, and limit is documented with an 'smaller is faster' hint. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 (list) and resource (discussion topics) bounded to a group workspace, and even previews what comes back (titles, unread counts). The phrase 'inside a group workspace' separates it from the course-level list_topics, and the pointer to post_group_discussion names the sibling that handles the adjacent task.

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?

Clearly signals the read path and routes writing to post_group_discussion, so the use/alternative split is explicit. It doesn't state exclusions such as when to prefer list_announcements or get_unread_discussion_count, so it falls short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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