get_discussion_topic_details

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to reiterate safety. However, it adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., data scope, freshness, permissions) beyond the annotation.

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 concise with a clear first sentence. The parameter listing is functional but slightly redundant with the schema. No wasted words, but could be tighter.

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?

With an output schema present, return values don't need full explanation. However, the description is minimal and doesn't hint at the breadth of 'details' returned, leaving some uncertainty.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage in descriptions, the text clarifies that course_identifier can be a course code or Canvas ID, and topic_id is a discussion topic ID. This adds meaning beyond the schema's generic titles.

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 tool retrieves detailed information about a specific discussion topic. The verb 'Get' and resource 'discussion topic' are specific. The name and description are unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_discussion_entry_details or get_discussion_with_replies. No prerequisites or context for usage are provided.

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