blackboard_list_discussion_replies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description reinforces this by stating it does not send replies, and adds that parentId and threadId are preserved in the returned data. It does not mention authentication, pagination, or rate limits, so it adds some but not rich behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the core return behavior is front-loaded and the negative constraint follows immediately. It is efficient, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly naming the operation as a list. No sentence is wasted.

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 six parameters, three required, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too sparse. It does not document most parameters, does not explain return shape beyond parentId/threadId preservation, and provides minimal usage context. The annotations help with safety, but the overall definition is incomplete for correct invocation.

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% across six parameters, so the description must compensate. It implies the need for a message and implicitly a discussion/course, but says nothing about status, groupId, onlyMine, or the required courseId/discussionId/messageId patterns. Most parameter semantics are left undocumented in both the schema and description.

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 specific resource (accessible replies to an Ultra discussion message) and scope (preserving parentId and threadId). It distinguishes from sending replies, but does not explicitly contrast with blackboard_list_discussion_messages or blackboard_get_discussion, which are close siblings. The core purpose is still clear enough for an agent to identify it as a list operation.

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?

It includes one negative guideline: 'No envía respuestas' (does not send replies), which helps avoid misusing it as a write tool. However, it offers no positive when-to-use guidance or explicit alternatives among the many sibling discussion tools. Usage is therefore only implied.

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