blackboard_list_discussion_replies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. The verb 'Read' implies a non-destructive operation, but no details about return format, pagination behavior, or any quirks (e.g., whether nested replies are included) are disclosed. The description adds little beyond the verb itself.

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 a single concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, but given the tool's complexity (9 parameters), a slightly more informative description would be appropriate without becoming verbose.

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 tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the relationship to sibling tools, the expected return structure, or any usage caveats. An agent would need to infer a lot from the schema alone, which is insufficient for a list operation with pagination and filters.

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 all parameters already have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning about parameters, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 states a clear verb ('Read') and resource ('replies to a discussion message/post in an Ultra discussion'), making the purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like blackboard_list_discussion_messages or blackboard_get_discussion_thread, but the operation is specific enough to understand what it does.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the related siblings (e.g., blackboard_list_discussion_messages, blackboard_get_discussion_thread). The description only says what it does, not when to choose it. No alternatives, exclusions, or context are provided.

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