list_discussions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description adds no behavioral context such as whether full discussion entries are included, how ordering and pagination behave, or what happens for invalid course IDs.

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 a single short sentence with no filler, making it easy to scan. It is concise, though somewhat at the expense of additional useful context.

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 simple list tool, the description plus schema is minimally sufficient: the agent knows the required course_id and available ordering/pagination options. However, it lacks routing cues to related discussion tools and any statement about the response shape, which matters because there is no output schema.

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%, so course_id, order_by, and per_page are already documented. The description adds no meaningful parameter detail beyond the 'in a course' scoping that maps to course_id.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), resource ('discussion topics'), and scope ('in a course'), making the core purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like get_discussion or list_discussion_entries.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_discussion_entries or get_discussion. The intended use is implied by the description, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are mentioned.

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