retrieve_my_discussions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action ('retrieves') without confirming it is read-only, required permissions, or potential side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence followed by a bulleted list of parameters. No unnecessary words or redundancy. The structure is front-loaded with the purpose and then parameter details.

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?

Given the simple parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose and parameters. However, it lacks context about the meaning of 'involved in' and does not distinguish from similar siblings, which would be helpful for complete understanding.

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%, and the description merely repeats the parameter details from the schema. It adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the tool retrieves discussions the user is involved in, using a specific verb ('retrieve') and resource ('discussions'). The scope 'you're involved in' distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'retrieve_specific_discussion' and 'retrieve_multiple_discussions', which do not specify user involvement.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios where one might choose this over other discussion retrieval tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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