smartsheet_list_proof_discussions

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only states 'List discussions on a proof' without mentioning read-only nature, pagination behavior, or any side effects. The schema's include_all and page parameters imply pagination but the description does not clarify this.

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?

At 4 words, the description is too brief. While concise, it sacrifices necessary detail and does not earn its place by adding value beyond the name.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It omits pagination behavior, output format, error handling, and relationship to other discussion tools.

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 80% (4 of 5 parameters have descriptions), but the description adds no parameter semantics. The required proof_id parameter lacks a schema description and the tool description does not explain it. The description does not build on the schema.

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?

The description 'List discussions on a proof' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly differentiating from sibling tools like smartsheet_get_discussion (single discussion) and smartsheet_list_sheet_discussions (discussions on a sheet). However, it lacks mention that proof_id is required and does not elaborate on the scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as smartsheet_list_row_discussions or smartsheet_list_proofs. The description gives no context for selection.

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