list_forums

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'visible' qualifier, which hints at permission filtering, but does not explain what determines visibility or whether results are subject to pagination. Since annotations cover the major behavioral risks, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single, concise sentence that directly states the function with no filler. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 read-only listing tool with annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not describe the return format (e.g., list of forum objects), how visibility is determined, or pagination behavior. Without an output schema, the agent has no idea what data will come back, which is a significant gap for a list operation.

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 for parameter meaning. However, it only indirectly references course_ids via 'materias seleccionadas' and entirely omits limit and offset. The schema itself provides default values but no semantic explanation. This falls short of the required compensation.

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 is clear about the action (list) and the resource (forums), with a specific qualifier of 'visible' and 'selected subjects'. It conveys the core purpose without being a tautology. However, it does not name or contrast against sibling tools like list_forum_discussions or list_announcements, so an agent might not immediately know when to choose this over those.

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, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The phrase 'de las materias seleccionadas' implies the course_ids parameter is needed, but it is not explicit about filtering logic or typical use cases. This leaves the agent to infer context from the schema alone.

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