read_discussions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Reads only' is redundant. However, the description adds behavioral value by explaining how result scope changes with forumId and topicId, which goes beyond the structured annotations and schema.

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 just two short sentences, front-loads the default behavior ('List forums'), then explains the optional parameter escalation in a compact way. There is no filler or repetition beyond the redundant but harmless 'Reads only.'

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 read-only hierarchical listing tool, the description is largely complete: it covers the default call, the two optional parameter levels, and the safety profile. It does not describe return format, but for simple discussion listing this is not a major blocker, especially with no output schema present.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by defining the relationship between the parameters: forumId alone selects topics, and both forumId and topicId select posts. The schema alone only labels them as numeric identifiers from another tool.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('forums'), and the tool name 'read_discussions' makes the scope unambiguous. The conditional phrasing also distinguishes the forum/topic/post hierarchy without needing to name sibling tools.

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 direct, actionable guidance: omit optional IDs for forums, add forumId for topics, and add both forumId and topicId for posts. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use this tool, but it fully explains the main decision an agent faces when invoking it.

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