agy_discussion_read

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description adds a genuinely useful trait beyond them: 'No model call' tells the agent the operation is deterministic and cheap, which is not inferable from the annotations; it does not, however, discuss pagination or behavior for invalid ids.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the mode switch, and every clause carries information. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be detailed, and the description nonetheless sketches the payload. The only real gap is pagination behavior for limit and any error/not-found semantics.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains discussion_id's dual semantics well but says nothing about limit (default 20, pagination), leaving one of two parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 names a specific resource (discussions) and splits behavior by mode: listing task summaries vs. reading roles, messages, decisions, context manifests and linked runs. That is concrete and distinguishable from siblings like agy_discussion_note or agy_discussion_turn, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

It gives a clear conditional rule: omit discussion_id to list, supply it to read details. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, but the when-to-use condition is unambiguous.

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