haops_list_discussions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filters but does not disclose pagination, result ordering, default behavior, or response structure. For a list operation, pagination is often important. The description is adequate for basic use but lacks key behavioral traits.

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 two sentences: the first states the action and filters, the second provides usage context. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary 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?

Given the tool is a list operation with 5 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is nearly complete. It explains filtering and use case. However, it lacks information on pagination or result format, which is a gap for a list tool. Overall, it is adequately complete.

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 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 5 parameters. The description rephrases filtering options but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., entityId requires entityType is already in schema). Baseline is 3; description barely adds value.

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 clearly states 'List discussions in a HAOps project' with specific filters (by entity, channel, status). It includes a usage context: 'Essential for the Entity Discussion Protocol — use this to find the discussion linked to a work item before posting.' This distinguishes it from other discussion-related tools like haops_create_discussion, haops_get_discussion, haops_search_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?

The description provides clear usage context: 'Essential for the Entity Discussion Protocol — use this to find the discussion linked to a work item before posting.' It implies when to use (before posting, with entity filters) but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or compare to siblings like haops_search_discussion. The sibling list helps, but the description could be more explicit.

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