Get Blackboard course content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description reinforces the read-only nature. It adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations by disclosing that hierarchy is only expanded 'a couple of folder levels' and that folder_id allows deeper navigation. It does not mention pagination or result size limits, but with annotations covering the safety profile this is sufficient.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose, then adds the key behavior and a read-only note. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description is complete enough for correct invocation: it identifies the required course_id, the optional folder_id, the expected content types, and the hierarchy expansion behavior. With no output schema, it could have briefly described the returned item shape, but the openWorldHint and the tool's name cover enough ground.

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 the schema already documents both course_id and folder_id clearly. The description adds the phrase 'go deeper into one folder' for folder_id, which slightly clarifies its purpose, but this is largely redundant with the schema's 'list instead of the course root.' The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 begins with a specific verb and object: 'List a course’s content items' and enumerates the item types (folders, documents, files, assignments, tests, links). This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and helps distinguish it from sibling tools like get_grades or get_announcements.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: to browse a course's content hierarchy. It also explains how to navigate deeper with folder_id. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives such as 'for assignment details, use get_assignments,' so it falls short of a 5.

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