List Group Discussion Topics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavior: topics are marked as either group copies of course topics or as group-originated. It also explains how to continue by passing the topic's group_id to list_discussion_entries or get_discussion_with_replies.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, then efficiently covers sibling distinction, return marking, and next-step tool usage. Every sentence contributes useful context with no redundant padding.

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 two-parameter read-only listing tool, the description gives enough context to select and use it correctly, including the distinction from list_discussion_topics and how to proceed after finding a topic. The absence of an output schema is offset by the explanation of topic markings and group_id routing.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description implies course scoping but does not add parameter-level detail such as how course_identifier and group_category_id are interpreted beyond the schema.

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 and resource: list discussion topics inside every group space of a course. It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from list_discussion_topics, which only sees course-level topics, so an agent can identify it without opening schemas.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool for topics students start inside group spaces, because those exist only in that group. It also names list_discussion_topics as the alternative and explains its limitation, and it names the follow-up tools for reading posts.

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