get_discussion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context beyond the tool name by specifying 'including its message/instructions,' which clarifies a key return component. However, it does not disclose potential response formatting, authentication requirements, or edge cases, making it adequate but minimal for a read operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the verb and resource immediately, with no redundant wording. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and earns its place fully.

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 two-parameter get operation with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and adds the key detail that message/instructions are included. It could further clarify what 'full details' encompasses, but given the low complexity and complete schema, the description is reasonably complete.

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 input schema fully describes both parameters (course_id and discussion_id) with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but it also does not need to since the schema is self-sufficient.

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 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'a discussion topic' with the clarifying detail 'full details... including its message/instructions.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_discussions, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Get full details' implies this is for retrieving a single discussion topic when a complete picture is needed, as opposed to a list. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like list_discussions or state when a user should choose this tool over others, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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