list_discussion_entries

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that optional full content and replies can be fetched. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or any side effects beyond read-only nature. The description provides moderate additional context but is not comprehensive.

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 clear sentence followed by a compact parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose. No extraneous content.

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?

The description adequately covers purpose and parameters, and the presence of an output schema helps. However, it lacks mention of pagination, ordering, or explicit differentiation from similar tools like get_discussion_with_replies, which slightly reduces completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains each parameter: course_identifier as 'Course code or Canvas ID', topic_id as 'Discussion topic ID', and boolean options with defaults. This adds critical meaning beyond the bare schema types, compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'List discussion entries (posts) for a specific discussion topic', specifying the action (list) and resource (discussion entries). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_discussion_entry_details (single entry) and list_discussion_topics (lists topics), making the purpose 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?

The description explains the parameters but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_discussion_with_replies or get_discussion_entry_details. The usage context is implied but lacks direct exclusions or recommendations.

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