get_discussion

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

Annotations already indicate 'readOnlyHint: true' and 'openWorldHint: true'. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it 'gets details'. It does not describe the extent or format of the details, nor any potential side effects (though none expected for a read).

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 sentence, directly front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundant or extraneous 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?

No output schema is provided. The description gives the purpose but does not explain what 'details' include (e.g., title, content, author). For a simple read tool with good annotations, this is adequate but could be more informative.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters having descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides ('by ID'). At 100% coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate; description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 action ('Get details') and the resource ('a single discussion topic by ID'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_discussions' (which retrieves multiple) and 'create_discussion', 'delete_discussion' (which are mutations).

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 implies usage when you have a specific ID, but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like 'list_discussions' or 'post_discussion_entry'. No explicit usage context is provided.

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