blackboard_list_discussion_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly signals a read operation, and the note that students only see posts from their groups in group discussions is a valuable behavioral quirk beyond the basic listing behavior. It does not mention output shape or ordering, but those are secondary for a read/list tool.

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 three short, purposeful sentences. The core action is front-loaded, the group-discussion nuance is included because it changes results, and the sibling-tool routing is stated directly. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 an 8-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the most important context: what is read, the group visibility behavior, and how to handle replies. The schema already documents parameters like limit, offset, and filters. It is slightly incomplete in not describing return format or pagination behavior, but it is otherwise sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, but it does reinforce the groupId context by explaining group-based visibility. No additional explanation is necessary because every parameter already has a meaningful description in the schema.

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 reads top-level discussion messages/posts, identifies the specific resource (Ultra discussion), and distinguishes it from the sibling blackboard_list_discussion_replies by explicitly noting replies are not included. This gives an agent a precise, actionable understanding of the tool's 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 explicitly names the alternative tool, blackboard_list_discussion_replies, and states the condition for using it: reading replies with a messageId. This effectively communicates when to use this tool versus the sibling, leaving no ambiguity about the read-replies workflow.

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