Get Group Discussion

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

Annotations already indicate this is a safe, read-only operation (readOnlyHint=true) and may return external data (openWorldHint=true). The description adds no additional behavioral context such as whether the discussion is retrieved with entries, permissions required, or any rate limits. It repeats the read-only nature implicitly without contributing new information.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. Every word is necessary and there is no 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?

Given the lack of an output schema and the presence of closely related sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, how this differs from 'get_discussion' or 'list_group_discussions', or any prerequisites, leaving the agent with incomplete context 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 100%, with both 'group_id' and 'topic_id' clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no further parameter details like format constraints beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details for a single discussion topic in a group') with a key lookup requirement ('by ID'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_discussion' or explain how 'group' modifies the scope, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this versus similar getters.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_discussion' or 'list_group_discussions'. It states what the tool does but not the context for selecting it over other discussion-related tools in the sibling set.

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