List discussions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing result ordering ('most recently active first') and the shape of returned data ('reply and unread counts') despite there being no output schema, which meaningfully helps the agent interpret results.

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 zero filler, and the resource, ordering, and return contents are all front-loaded before the cross-tool pointer. Nothing repeats the tool name or the annotations.

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-only listing with annotations covering safety, the description supplies the essentials: what is listed, in what order, with what counts, and where to go for detail. The remaining gaps are the ambiguous 'id' reference and the absence of any pagination or volume hint, which matter mildly for an open-world listing 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 schema documents nothing about the single parameter. The description only implies course scoping via 'in a course' and never names course_id or states it is required; worse, the closing sentence uses a bare 'id', which could be misread as the listing's own parameter rather than the discussion id for canvas_get_discussion.

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 names the resource (discussion topics) and its scope (in a course), plus the ordering ('most recently active first') and returned fields ('reply and unread counts'). It is a noun-phrase fragment rather than a verb+resource statement, and it never distinguishes itself from canvas_list_announcements, which in Canvas is a near-identical listing surface.

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?

There is real routing guidance: 'Pass an id to canvas_get_discussion' tells the agent the explicit next step for details. However, there is no exclusion guidance for the closest sibling (canvas_list_announcements) or any statement of when this listing is preferred over canvas_search or canvas_course_snapshot, so the choice among overlapping list tools is left to inference.

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