ilias_list_forum_topics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context that no thread bodies are fetched, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or behavior for invalid targets.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its scope, then the returned fields. 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 need no explanation, and the field list is a bonus. The gap is the unexplained 'target' argument and the absence of any indication of result size or pagination for a list operation.

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 single required parameter 'target' has 0% schema coverage and the description never explains what a target is or what form it takes (forum id, URL, title). With one undocumented parameter, the description should compensate and does not.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: it lists forum threads and enumerates the returned fields (titles, authors, counts, last activity). The clause 'Threads are never opened' sharpens the scope by making clear this is metadata only, which separates it from any content-reading behavior.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and by 'Threads are never opened', which tells the agent this is the discovery step before reading content. However, no alternative is named and no precondition is given (e.g. that a forum target is required to have been resolved first).

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