Read Topic

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: posts are returned as raw markdown, ordered oldest first, and start_post_number is optional. This helps the agent understand the expected output format and ordering without needing to invoke the tool. It does not describe pagination or error behavior, but the annotations already establish safety.

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 sentence conveys the essential action, resource, format, ordering, and optionality with zero filler. The most important information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 tool with all parameters documented and readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description covers the core behavior: what is read, the format, and ordering. There is no output schema, so an ideal description might mention that multiple posts are returned, but 'a topic's posts' already implies this. Minor gaps around response shape are acceptable given the low complexity.

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%, so the input schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds only a minor clarification about 'optional start', which aligns with start_post_number but does not materially expand on the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Read a topic's posts', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like discourse_read_post (single post) and discourse_search. It also specifies the output format (raw markdown) and ordering (oldest first), leaving 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 implies usage for reading posts within a topic, and the optional start clause suggests parameter flexibility, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over discourse_read_post or discourse_search. No exclusions or alternative conditions are stated, so the agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool name and siblings.

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