Topic Replies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds pagination behavior with page/size defaults and the 1-50 range, but it does not disclose response contents, ordering, or behavior on invalid topic IDs. This is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that covers the resource, action, and key pagination constraints with no filler. Every part adds useful information and it is easy for an agent to scan.

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 low-complexity, read-only list tool with fully described parameters and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete: it states what is fetched and how pagination works. It omits return-value shape and ordering, but those are not essential for correct invocation.

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 topic_id, page, and size are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the pagination defaults and range but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with 'Get replies to a discussion topic', naming a specific verb and resource. It clearly identifies this as a read-only listing operation for replies, distinct from topic detail or reply creation siblings. The pagination detail reinforces the scope even without naming alternatives.

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 establishes a clear context: use this tool when you need to fetch replies for a discussion topic. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the read-only, resource-specific framing makes the primary use case obvious.

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