List discussions

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile. The description adds that results are 'recent' and enumerates the fields in each item (id, title, author, AI status, replies, lock state, URL), which is useful return-value information. It does not disclose deeper behavior such as pagination, ordering beyond recency, or whether the list is global or user-specific. With annotations present, the additional behavioral disclosure is modest.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core action and filters are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence enumerates return fields. Every word adds value.

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 listing tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it lists the returned fields and the filtering options. It leaves minor gaps such as the exact meaning of 'recent' (creation vs. activity) and whether the list is global or user-specific, but these are not critical for invoking the tool correctly.

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?

The description says 'optionally filtered by category slug or kind', which clarifies that both category and kind are optional filters and adds meaning beyond the schema's terse 'Thread kind.' and 'Category slug from `categories`'. The limit parameter is not mentioned, but the schema provides default, min, and max constraints, so it is adequately covered. The description partially compensates for the 67% schema 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 states a specific verb ('List'), the resource ('recent discussions (threads)'), and the optional filters (category slug or kind). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling read_thread, since this lists multiple threads while read_thread presumably fetches one. No ambiguity about what the tool 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?

The description gives clear context: list recent discussions, optionally filtered by category or kind. This implies the tool is for browsing threads rather than retrieving a specific one. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like read_thread, so it falls short of a 5.

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