inspect_discussion_posts

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

The description discloses the key side effect: Moodle may mark posts as read and record tracking. This aligns with the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint annotations, adding value beyond the annotations by specifying what the mutation entails. It does not explicitly address idempotency, but the side-effect disclosure is useful.

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?

The description is a single sentence and technically concise, but it is under-specified and not front-loaded with critical details (e.g., side effects, parameter meaning). It is not poorly structured, but brevity here sacrifices clarity.

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 the tool has side effects, two required parameters, no output schema, and a preview sibling, the description is woefully incomplete. It omits necessary detail about the confirmation token, side-effect conditions, and alternative tools, leaving the agent unable to safely or correctly invoke it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; it does not. The purpose of the required confirmation_token is entirely unexplained, and neither discussion_id nor the optional limit and offset are given additional meaning. The agent is left to guess parameter semantics from names alone.

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 states it reads confirmed posts, but 'confirmados' is vague and does not clearly distinguish this from the sibling tool list_discussion_posts. The name 'inspect' and the mention of side effects suggest a more thorough operation, but the description does not explicitly differentiate.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_discussion_posts or preview_inspect_discussion_posts. The existence of a preview sibling is not mentioned, and there is no context about prerequisites or scenarios.

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