List Discussions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that - no pagination behavior, no indication of whether announcements are included, no note on how large result sets are handled.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the scope constraint stated up front. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity is also part of why it under-specifies.

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 simple read-only list tool whose annotations already carry the safety profile and whose one parameter is fully documented, this is minimally adequate. Still missing is any routing context relative to group discussions and announcements, plus pagination/return-shape expectations with no output schema present.

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% and the single course_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (discussion topics) scoped to a course, so the basic operation is clear. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as list_group_discussions, list_announcements, or get_discussion, which an agent must choose between.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives. With siblings like list_group_discussions and list_announcements in the same family, an agent is left to infer which scope applies.

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