blackboard_discussions

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

The phrase 'without posting or mutating read state' adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by clarifying that reading does not affect read/unread status. This is valuable because many messaging tools mark items as read on access. It is fully consistent with the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations.

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 sentence that front-loads the action ('Read') and the resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or fluff. It is easy to parse and appropriately sized.

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?

Despite having annotations and an output schema, the tool has six parameters and multiple views, and the description does not explain the navigation hierarchy among forums, messages, and replies or the roles of forum_id and message_id. This leaves significant gaps for an agent attempting to use the tool correctly, especially for multi-step discussion browsing.

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%, so the description must compensate for lack of parameter documentation. It does not: the description provides no explanation of course, view, forum_id, message_id, limit, or offset, nor how the view enum values relate to forums, threads, and replies. An agent would have to guess how to construct even basic calls.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('discussion forums, threads and replies'). It also explicitly distinguishes the tool from write operations by stating 'without posting or mutating read state.' This makes its purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like blackboard_messages.

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 clearly establishes the context of use: retrieving discussion content in a read-only manner. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer when to invoke it. No exclusionary guidance is present, but none is strictly required given the unique scope.

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