canvas_discussion_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what is returned (discussion topic, replies, author info) but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's read-only. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, as it doesn't fully describe operational traits beyond basic output.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, lists returns, and ends with usage guidance. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for returns), but it's efficient and clear.

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's moderate complexity (retrieving a discussion with replies), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and returns but misses behavioral aspects like auth needs or error cases. It's adequate for basic use but lacks depth for full agent understanding in a complex environment.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters (course_id and topic_id). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get a specific discussion with all replies.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific discussion'), and distinguishes it from the sibling 'canvas_discussion_list' by focusing on a single discussion rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other discussion-related tools beyond the sibling list, keeping it at a 4.

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 implied usage guidance: 'Use this to read and understand a discussion.' This suggests it's for retrieving detailed discussion content, but it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives (e.g., compared to 'canvas_discussion_list' for summaries). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, making it adequate but not comprehensive.

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