bb_announcements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. Beyond the course-omission scoping behavior, it says nothing about read-only nature, auth requirements, or result limits.

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 efficient sentence with the scoping rule front-loaded. No waste, but it is arguably too terse for the schema gaps it must cover.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers the course scope but leaves the days parameter and return shape unaddressed, leaving a real gap an agent must guess at.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the course parameter's null/omitted behavior but says nothing about the days parameter (default 14) or what 'recent' actually bounds.

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?

States a specific resource (announcements) with clear scope: one course, or all current courses if course is omitted. The listing verb is implied rather than explicit, but an agent can distinguish it from siblings like bb_courses or bb_upcoming.

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 phrase 'for all current courses if none is given' implicitly tells the agent that omitting course widens scope, which is useful. However, it names no alternatives (e.g., bb_upcoming) and gives no condition for choosing between them.

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