list_discussion_entries

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that only top-level entries are listed and that reply counts are included, which is meaningful. However, it omits any mention of read-only nature, permission requirements, pagination, or error handling. For a simple list tool, this is acceptable but not thorough.

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 sentence that is direct, front-loaded with the action, and includes the key nuance (top-level, reply counts) without waste. It is perfectly efficient.

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 simple two-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the important distinction of top-level entries. It does not mention pagination or filtering, but given the simplicity and existence of an output schema, this is nearly complete. It could be improved, but it is quite adequate.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter roles. It only implies the topic via 'discussion topic' and course context, but never explicitly states what course_identifier or topic_id represent. The agent gets minimal guidance on expected values or types beyond the schema's anyOf, which is insufficient.

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 the action (list), the specific resource (top-level entries/posts), and the context (in a discussion topic), plus an extra detail (reply counts). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_discussion_topics and get_discussion_topic_details.

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 for retrieving posts in a topic, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it note any exclusions (e.g., not for listing topics). The clear name and purpose make it somewhat obvious, but explicit guidance is absent, so it only earns an implied-level score.

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