brightspace_view_page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by stating the return is an MCP image rather than text and by explaining that `image` selects one embedded slide picture. It doesn't say what happens when the item is not a PDF or PowerPoint, or what errors occur for invalid page numbers.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the return behavior and with no filler. Minor ambiguity remains because "Optionally supply image" doesn't spell out that the parameter applies only to slides.

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?

There is no output schema, and the tool has 7 parameters with multiple mutually exclusive ID sets, so the description should carry more weight. It covers the core read behavior and the selection rule but omits how to obtain the IDs, the supported file types, and error behavior.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns extra credit by stating the topic-vs-attachment selection rule, which the schema does not encode (there is no oneOf, and additionalProperties is false). The rule remains vague about which IDs pair with which path, keeping it below a 5.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it returns a rendered PDF page or PowerPoint slide as an MCP image, and the optional `image` parameter targets one embedded picture. It implicitly distinguishes itself from text-oriented siblings such as brightspace_read_topic and brightspace_read_attachment, but it never names them, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

"Choose a topic OR an assignment/news attachment" signals mutual exclusivity between input paths, which is useful guidance. However, it doesn't say which parameters realize each path (topicId vs. fileId plus folderId or newsItemId), and it doesn't say when to use this instead of brightspace_read_topic or brightspace_read_attachment.

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