canvas_discussion_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses some behavioral traits: it returns discussion titles, messages, post counts, unread counts, and pinned/locked status. However, it doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions, which are important for a list operation in an educational platform context.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, lists return values in bullet points, and provides usage guidelines in a separate section. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information.

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 (list operation with filtering), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic completeness. It covers what the tool does and what it returns, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like pagination, error handling, or authentication requirements that would be helpful for an AI agent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (course_id and only_unread). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the format of course_id or the implications of the only_unread filter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'List all discussion topics in a course.' It specifies the resource (discussion topics) and verb (list), and distinguishes it from siblings like canvas_discussion_get by indicating it returns multiple items. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like canvas_announcement_list beyond the resource type.

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 'Use this to:' section provides clear context for when to use this tool: to find discussions to participate in, see what's being discussed, or check for unread posts. This gives practical guidance, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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