list_discussions

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds behavioral context: 'Caller must be a group member,' pagination with `limit` and `offset`, and ordering by latest activity. No contradictions.

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?

Description is a single paragraph but well-structured: starts with main action, then required param, optional params with defaults, use cases, and sibling reference. Every sentence adds value; no wasted 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?

For a simple list tool with no output schema, description covers purpose, required/optional parameters with defaults, member requirement, pagination, and use cases. Lacks output description but ordering is noted. Sufficient for selection and invocation.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. Description adds meaning: clarifies `group_id` is required, explains `status` enum values (open/unlocked, closed/locked, all), notes default `limit` is 50, and describes `offset` for pagination. This goes beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'List discussions in a Loomio group, ordered by latest activity,' specifying verb, resource, and ordering. It distinguishes from sibling tool `get_discussion` by noting 'For one specific thread, use get_discussion.'

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?

Provides explicit use cases: 'to answer what's being discussed in group X, show me recent threads, or before create_discussion to check for duplicates.' Mentions alternative `get_discussion` for single threads. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but guidance is clear.

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