Phenomenai

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'discussion title, body, and each comment with author and date', which adds useful context about output format. However, it doesn't mention behavioral traits like error handling, permissions needed, or rate limits, leaving gaps for a read operation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance and return details. The 'Args' section is brief and directly relevant. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 an output schema, the description doesn't need to fully explain return values. It covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics adequately. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it could benefit from more behavioral context like error cases or limitations, slightly reducing completeness.

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 adds meaning by explaining that 'discussion_number' comes 'from pull_discussions', clarifying the parameter's source and purpose beyond the schema's basic type. This is helpful, but it doesn't detail format constraints or examples, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 clearly states the verb 'Read' and resource 'full content of a discussion', specifying it includes 'original body and all comments'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'pull_discussions' (which likely lists discussions) and 'add_to_discussion' (which modifies discussions), making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'Use this to understand what has been said before contributing.' This implies it's for reading existing content rather than modifying or listing discussions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'pull_discussions' for overviews, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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