get_discussion_topic_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it gets details and message body, but does not mention potential limitations, required permissions, or any side effects. For a read operation, this is minimal disclosure.

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 sentence with no waste, front-loading the action and resource. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it could include a hint about parameters without bloat.

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?

While the output schema covers return values, the description fails to explain the required parameters at all, and with no annotations, it lacks guidance on authorization or edge cases. For a two-parameter tool, this is a notable gap in 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. It doesn't explain what 'course_identifier' or 'topic_id' are, their format, or how they relate to the tool's purpose, forcing the agent to infer from sibling patterns.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('full details and message body for one discussion topic'), and scopes it to a single topic, which distinguishes it from list_discussion_topics (list) and list_discussion_entries (entries). This is a precise and unambiguous purpose.

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 implies usage when you need details for a single topic, but it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like list_discussion_topics or list_discussion_entries, nor does it mention any exclusions. The context suggests the right tool through the word 'one', but it lacks direct guidance.

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