list_discussions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying that only 'public discussions' are listed and by noting pagination via 'Follow Next call.' This goes beyond the annotations and informs the agent about scope and iteration behavior.

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 short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose ('List public discussions') and adds the filtering and pagination notes efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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 three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and mentions pagination, but it does not describe the return shape (e.g., what fields a discussion has) or any ordering/sorting behavior. Given the lack of an output schema, an agent might need more guidance on what to expect in the response, though the description is minimally viable for a simple list call.

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 explain parameters. It only hints at interest_id via 'within an interest' but does not mention limit or offset, nor their roles or constraints. The pagination note indirectly refers to offset but does not name it. The agent would not understand the full parameter semantics from the description alone.

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 action ('List') and resource ('public discussions'), and adds an optional filter ('within an interest'). This is specific and not a tautology. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_posts or read_discussion, though 'public discussions' narrows the scope enough for basic understanding.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to choose this over search_posts, read_discussion, or browse_interests. The only usage hint is 'Follow Next call for another page,' which is about pagination, not when to invoke the tool.

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