portal_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 disclosure. The verb 'Get' reasonably implies a read-only operation, and 'upcoming or archived' defines the two modes. However, it does not mention permissions, pagination, return shape, or any side-effect-free guarantee beyond the verb itself. It is not misleading but leaves behavioral details undisclosed.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the clarifying parenthetical is efficient. It is appropriately minimal for a one-param read tool without being under-specified to the point of uselessness.

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 one-param retrieval, the description plus schema is almost sufficient: the agent knows what it returns and how to filter via the view enum. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not disclose what the returned discussion objects look like, whether archived items are sorted, or any access constraints. It is adequate but leaves standard retrieval details unaddressed.

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% and the schema only provides the enum ['upcoming','archive'] with no per-property description. The description reinforces these values by naming 'upcoming' and 'archived', and clarifies that these are discussion types, but it does not explicitly say that the 'view' parameter selects between them. For a single-param tool this is passable but not fully compensated.

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 the verb ('Get'), the resource ('discussions'), and the two relevant scopes ('upcoming or archived'), with a parenthetical clarifying that discussions are parent-teacher talks. This uniquely identifies it from the other portal_* siblings, none of which cover discussions.

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 gives a clear context—when you need upcoming or archived parent-teacher discussions—but it never says when this tool should not be used or names alternatives. With many sibling tools like portal_messages or portal_inbox, some explicit routing would help. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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