moodle_get_discussion_posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral context by revealing the return includes hierarchical structure ('完整楼层树') and specific fields (author, attachments, word count), going beyond the annotations.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states what the tool does and returns; the second gives the prerequisite source for the parameter. Every clause 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?

With one required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately describes return content (complete thread tree with author, attachments, word count) and parameter acquisition. It doesn't list every possible response field or pagination, but the simple scope does not demand it.

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 schema provides only a numeric discussionid with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by telling the agent the parameter should come from moodle_get_forum_discussions, giving its semantic origin and making the parameter unambiguous.

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?

Description uses a specific verb '取' (get) and clearly identifies the resource as the complete thread tree of a forum discussion, including author, attachments, and word count. This distinguishes it from sibling moodle_get_forum_discussions which lists discussions.

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?

Explicitly states that discussionid comes from moodle_get_forum_discussions, establishing a clear prerequisite and workflow. It does not enumerate exclusions or alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for this simple retrieval tool.

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