moodle_get_forum_discussions

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

The annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by revealing that discussion rows contain URLs with 'd=' parameters, from which discussion IDs can be extracted, and that this ID is the input to another tool. This goes beyond the structured 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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loading the purpose and adding only a useful tip about extracting discussionid. No unnecessary words.

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 one-parameter tool with read-only annotations, the description is complete: it states the resource (forum discussions), the follow-up action (pass id to another tool), and relies on the schema for parameter details. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 input schema has full description coverage for the single parameter cmid, explaining it as the course module id from the activity link. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics, 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 it returns a list of discussions in a forum ('一个论坛里的讨论列表'). It also distinguishes from siblings by referencing discussionid and directing to moodle_get_discussion_posts for post content, making the purpose 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 description provides clear context: use this tool to get a list of forum discussions. It also gives a usage guideline by telling the agent to extract discussionid from the URL and pass it to moodle_get_discussion_posts to view content, effectively differentiating it from the post-content sibling.

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