list_discussions

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the default ordering (solution write-ups first), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about read-only nature, pagination, filtering semantics, or result size.

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?

A single compact sentence that is front-loaded with the resource and ordering. It is efficient and wastes little, though it borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed. But for a two-parameter listing tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description should explain the competition filter and solutions_only flag; it leaves both undefined.

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 0% and neither parameter (competition, solutions_only) is explained in the description. The phrase 'solution write-ups first' loosely touches the solutions concept but never names or defines the parameters, so the gap is largely unaddressed.

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 conveys that this retrieves saved discussion topics and notes a default ordering (solution write-ups first), so the resource is clear. However, the verb is only implied by the tool name, and it does not distinguish itself from the close sibling search_discussions or explain what 'saved' means versus a general search.

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 gives a partial next-step hint by noting the ids feed get_discussion, but offers no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives like search_discussions or get_discussion. An agent must infer the selection condition entirely.

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