blackboard_discussions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: reading does not mutate read state and does not post content. This is genuinely useful context for an agent.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase earns its place: the action, the resource scope, and the behavioral constraint are all present without redundancy.

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?

This tool has six parameters and a hierarchical discussion structure (forums → threads/messages → replies), but the description does not explain how the parameters work together to navigate that hierarchy. Despite having an output schema, an agent would likely struggle to know when to set forum_id versus message_id or how view changes the request scope.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It mentions 'forums, threads and replies,' which loosely maps to the view enum, but it does not explain the relationship between course, view, forum_id, message_id, limit, or offset. The hierarchical navigation semantics remain unclear.

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 ('Read') and a clear resource ('discussion forums, threads and replies'), and adds a scope qualifier ('without posting or mutating read state'). It is clear and directionally distinct from siblings like blackboard_messages, though it does not explicitly name any sibling for contrast.

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 implies this tool is for read-only access to discussion content, which gives a reasonable usage signal. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives such as blackboard_messages or other Blackboard tools, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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