preview_inspect_discussion_posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it does not query the discussion nor change its reading, which reinforces the read-only nature and clarifies that even the read is not performed. This is some additional behavior context beyond annotations, though it does not explain what preview actually returns or how it behaves internally.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('Previsualiza abrir posts') and immediately clarifies the lack of side effects. It avoids fluff and is efficient, though it could be slightly more informative without hurting conciseness.

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?

With no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description is too thin. It does not explain what the preview returns (e.g., whether it simulates a response), nor does it describe the meaning of limit/offset/discussion_id. For a tool with three parameters and no structured metadata, this leaves the agent without essential information to call it correctly.

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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for the parameters (discussion_id, limit, offset). The tool description offers no explanation of what these parameters mean or how they should be used. This is a critical gap—the agent is left without any guidance on how to fill the arguments correctly.

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 identifies the tool as a preview of opening posts and clearly states it does not query the discussion or alter its reading. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool inspect_discussion_posts through the 'preview' prefix and the negative clause, giving a specific enough purpose.

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 description implies a preview use-case (use before an actual inspection) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of inspect_discussion_posts, nor does it mention any alternatives or exclusions. The 'preview' phrasing hints at the appropriate context without being explicit.

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