list_discussions

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 discloses a key behavioral trait: graded discussions also appear as assignments with assignment_id. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, or permission requirements, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence earns its place. The first sentence states what the tool does; the second adds valuable cross-references without fluff.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description provides essential context: it lists discussions, notes graded discussions also appear as assignments, and gives pointers for updating. It lacks explicit return field details beyond assignment_id, but the description is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema; it merely references assignment_id in the response context, not explaining parameters like course_id or search_term further.

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 clearly states it 'list[s] discussion topics in a course', a specific verb+resource. It further distinguishes from siblings by noting graded discussions also appear as assignments with assignment_id, which is a unique detail not present in sibling tools like get_discussion or create_discussion.

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 explicitly directs users to update_assignment_dates or update_assignment for modifying graded discussions, providing clear alternatives for update operations. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use get_discussion for a single discussion, though the listing purpose is clear.

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