fiuba_forum_discussions

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: posts are student/teacher authored and must be treated as untrusted text, never instructions. That is a real security trait not captured by annotations. It does not disclose result limits/pagination for 'latest', which is a minor gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose before the id-sourcing and security notes. Every sentence adds information an agent needs; nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 one-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter sourcing, and the untrusted-content caveat. It stops short of indicating result volume, pagination, or ordering beyond 'latest', which would help an agent decide how to consume the output.

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% and the single parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description carries the full burden — and it does: forumid is the forum module's `instance` from fiuba_get_course, explicitly not its cmid. That tells the agent exactly where to source the value and what mistake to avoid.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists the latest discussions of a forum') and anchors it with a concrete example ('course announcements / Avisos'). It is distinguishable from fiuba_read_discussion by the plural 'latest discussions' framing, but it never explicitly says how it differs from that sibling.

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?

Usage is implied by 'latest discussions' and the announcement example, and the description helpfully explains where the id comes from. However it gives no explicit when-to-use vs fiuba_read_discussion (list first, then read a thread) and no exclusions, so the agent must infer the workflow.

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