list_forum_discussions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat safety behavior. It adds useful context about visibility ('cualquier foro visible') and scope (not just announcements), which aligns with annotations and adds value beyond them.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key differentiator. It is appropriately concise, though it omits parameter guidance (which is penalized elsewhere).

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?

The tool has no output schema and no parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate by explaining return values and parameter semantics. It provides neither, leaving the agent unaware of the response format or the meaning of page/per_page. Even for a simple read-only list, this is a significant gap.

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%, yet the description offers zero explanation of any parameter (forum_id, page, per_page). It neither defines their meaning nor provides usage details, so the agent must rely solely on type information, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 verb 'list' and resource 'forum discussions' are clear. The description explicitly states it lists discussions from any visible forum and clarifies it is not restricted to announcements, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_announcements.

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 'no solo los anuncios' implies this tool is the broader alternative to announcement-specific listing, giving a usage hint. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool (list_announcements) or provide a when-to-use/when-not-to-use condition, leaving some inference to the agent.

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