github_get_discussion

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the default full-body behavior, backward compatibility, that summary truncates at excerpt_chars=500, and that include_comments pulls nested replies in the same round-trip (avoiding extra calls). It omits auth requirements, error behavior for a missing number, and any rate-limit or size caveats for full bodies.

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 dense paragraph with the resource statement front-loaded and each subsequent clause tied to a parameter or mode. No filler, though the packed parenthetical enumeration of comment parameters is harder to scan than a short bulleted form.

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 an 8-parameter read tool with an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description covers mode selection, excerpt sizing, and nested-comment retrieval — everything needed to invoke it correctly. Only the unmentioned repo_full_name default is a residual gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by documenting 6 of the 8 parameters, including the mode values (full|summary), their defaults, and the comment-related knobs (comments_mode, comments_limit, comments_excerpt_chars). The notable gap is repo_full_name, which is never mentioned even though it defaults to a hard-coded repo (dataciviclab/dataciviclab) — an agent could silently query the wrong repository.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Restituisce una GitHub Discussion'), which is immediately distinguishable from the sibling list tool github_list_discussions. It does not explicitly name the list sibling as an alternative, but the singular-resource scope makes the distinction clear.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetch one discussion, choose summary vs full and opt into comments. There is no explicit 'use this when... / do not use when...' guidance, and no mention of when to prefer github_list_discussions or how to route between summary and full modes (e.g. token budget).

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