moodle_discussion

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that it returns ALL posts (a scope/volume statement) but says nothing about ordering, pagination, truncation, or what a post object contains. Adequate but thin for a tool whose output could be large.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core purpose first and the id-provenance hint parenthetically attached. No wasted words, though the parenthetical slightly interrupts the primary statement.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope (all posts), and id provenance — enough to invoke correctly. Missing only return-shape/pagination detail, which is a minor gap at this complexity.

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% and the sole parameter has no description, so the description carries the full burden. It does so by explaining that discussion_id is obtained from moodle_announcements or moodle_read on a forum — a meaningful provenance hint beyond the bare 'integer' type.

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 the resource and scope precisely: 'All posts in one forum discussion' — an agent immediately knows this returns discussion content, not forums or announcements. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, but the scope is narrow enough to be 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 parenthetical tells the agent where to get the discussion id (moodle_announcements / moodle_read on a forum), which is a genuine workflow hint and better than nothing. However it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings like moodle_read or moodle_course_contents, nor any prerequisite beyond the id source.

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