brightspace_read_topic

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful access precondition that the topic must be visible, but says nothing about pagination behavior, how OCR is triggered or costed, or what happens when a document is a scan rather than extractable text.

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 front-loaded sentence with the core action first and the supported formats as a compact qualifier. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, and nothing that could be cut without losing information.

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?

With six parameters and no output schema, the definition should explain at least the shape of the returned text and how offset/maxChars chunk it, plus when a scan requires OCR instead of direct extraction. Those gaps remain, though the annotations and full schema coverage keep the tool callable without them.

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 every parameter including offset, section, ocrPage and maxChars is already documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional meaning about how these parameters interact or which to prefer, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Read text from a visible file topic") and enumerates the supported formats (PDF pages, PowerPoint slides and speaker notes, Word paragraphs, Excel rows). It is clearly distinguishable in intent, though it never names or contrasts itself with close siblings such as brightspace_read_attachment or brightspace_view_page.

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?

Usage is implied by the "visible file topic" scoping and the format list, which tells an agent this is for extracting text out of file content items rather than notes, pages, or attachments. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no pointer to the alternative tools for non-file content.

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