brightspace_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior — that the default path touches only local setup while verifyConnection triggers an authenticated network call. The secrecy guarantee ("without exposing secrets") is a useful, non-obvious disclosure, though nothing is said about what the check reports back.

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?

Two compact sentences with the default behavior and the secrecy guarantee front-loaded, followed by the opt-in mode. No filler or redundancy.

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 zero-required-parameter, single-boolean tool with no output schema, this covers the essential behavior and the safety profile. The main omission is whether the local inspection surfaces configuration values or just a health verdict, which would help an agent interpret the result.

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 100%, and the schema text already explains that the flag makes an authenticated API call rather than only inspecting local setup. The description's framing ("verify the school API identity") adds a small amount of meaning — what is being verified — but largely restates the parameter.

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 names a concrete verb and resource: checking local configuration, with an explicit safety framing ("without exposing secrets"). It is unambiguously a diagnostic/status tool, distinct from every sibling (which all read course content, notes, or grades), though it never states that differentiation explicitly.

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?

It gives a clear trigger for the non-default mode ("Set verifyConnection=true to verify the school API identity"), which is real when-to-use guidance for the parameter. But there is no guidance on when to call the tool at all versus just calling an authenticated sibling, and no statement of what the local-only check is useful for.

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