Read course discussions

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explains the conditional behavior driven by messageId and the relationship to bb_browse_course. It does not discuss pagination or default limits, but the read-only safety profile is already covered by annotations.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with no filler: the first states the operational behavior, the second gives the required lookup path. Every sentence 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 read-only list operation with no output schema and an openWorldHint, the description tells the agent what it will get and how to satisfy the required forumId. Minor gaps such as default limit and exact response shape remain, but they are not blocking 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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that messageId selects the reply view and that forumId should be the conferenceId/id from bb_browse_course. The undocumented limit parameter is not addressed, but three of four parameters already have schema descriptions.

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 ('Reads') and resource ('discussion forum'), and clearly distinguishes the two call modes: top-level posts by default, or replies when messageId is provided. It does not explicitly name or differentiate a sibling tool such as bb_list_conversations, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 a concrete prerequisite: obtain forumId from a 'discussion' item in bb_browse_course, including where to find the id (contentDetail conferenceId/id). This is clear usage context, though it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over sibling read-list tools.

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