list_discussion_topics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation type ('List') which implies read-only, but does not mention permissions, side effects, pagination, ordering, or whether archived/deleted topics are included. This is minimal and leaves critical behavior undisclosed.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It contains no fluff or repetition, and the parenthetical adds a specific qualifier without verbosity. Every word earns its place.

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 tool is simple (one parameter) and presumably has an output schema that defines return values. The description covers the core purpose and the key exclusion. However, it lacks guidance on parameter format, any prerequisites, or behavioral details like pagination. For a simple listing tool, it is adequate but leaves room for improvement.

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 does not mention the parameter at all. The parameter name 'course_identifier' is intuitive, but the description adds no extra meaning about expected format (e.g., SIS ID vs internal ID) or constraints. It fails to compensate 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 the action ('List') and the resource ('discussion topics'), and explicitly narrows scope with '(excluding announcements)'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_announcements and list_discussion_entries without opening their schemas. The phrase 'in a course' also identifies the context.

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 provides a hint of when not to use this tool by excluding announcements, implying that announcements are handled elsewhere. However, it does not explicitly name list_announcements or offer any other alternative tool comparisons (e.g., for topic details or entries). Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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