list_discussion_entries

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction exists. The description adds limited behavioral detail, such as optional inclusion of replies and full content, but these are already present in the input schema. No additional context about pagination, errors, or permissions is provided, and with readOnly covered, the description adds minimal extra value.

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 redundant words. It directly states the action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 straightforward listing tool with full schema coverage and a readOnly annotation, the description is sufficient. It doesn't explain return format, but since no output schema exists, that isn't required. It could note that replies are only fetched when include_replies is true, but the schema already conveys this, so the description is adequately complete.

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 100%, with all four parameters clearly described (e.g., include_replies: 'Fetch replies for each entry'). The description merely echoes 'optional full content and replies' without adding new meaning, so it stays at the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 'List' with a clear resource 'discussion entries (posts)' and explicitly scopes to 'a specific discussion topic'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_discussion_topics (listing topics) and get_discussion_with_replies (fetching a full thread).

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 states what it does but offers no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like get_discussion_with_replies. It implies usage for listing entries but does not exclude similar tools or mention when not to use it.

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