read_discussion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation, and the desc tip adds useful context about reaching the live end of a thread. However, it does not disclose return shape, pagination behavior, or any absence of side effects beyond the schema's own parameter notes.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and a single high-value tip. There is no filler, no restatement of schema details, and every sentence 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?

Combined with 100% schema coverage and a well-described enum and offset behavior, the tool is correctly invokable after reading this definition. It lacks an explicit return-value statement and sibling-routing guidance, but the desc tip addresses the most important usage edge case.

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%, with detailed parameter notes for limit, order, offset, and discussion_id. The description's desc tip adds practical context about live-end vs opening posts but does not document parameters itself, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 action and resource ('Read a discussion thread'), clearly separating it from list-only or mutation siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_discussions, but the verb+resource pairing is 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 sentence 'On long threads, use order "desc"...' gives a concrete within-tool usage rule, but the description never says when to prefer this tool over siblings like list_discussions or search_posts. The intended use is implied from the name and verb rather than explicitly routed.

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