get_course_discussions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation and makes the topic/announcement boundary explicit, which is good. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, permission requirements, or other runtime behaviors.

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 extremely concise: one opening sentence stating the operation and scope, followed by a minimal Args block. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important disambiguation is front-loaded.

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?

The output schema covers the return shape, and the description handles the core purpose and course_id provenance. However, the undocumented account parameter and the lack of an explicit pointer to get_announcements for announcements leave some contextual gaps for a two-parameter tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must document all parameters. It explains course_id as the numeric Canvas course ID and how to obtain it, but it completely omits the account parameter that appears in the schema with a default value. This leaves a significant semantic gap.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List discussion topics' for a course. It explicitly disambiguates from announcements, which clearly separates it from the sibling get_announcements tool.

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 usage context by specifying 'for a course' and instructs the agent to get course_id from get_courses. It implicitly excludes announcements, but does not explicitly name get_announcements as the alternative, so the guidance is not fully complete.

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