List Blackboard courses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the 'Read-only' sentence adds little beyond the annotation. The description does add value by specifying that only 'currently visible' courses are returned, and that the output consists of course ids used by other tools. This goes beyond the structured annotations, though it does not clarify open-world semantics explicitly.

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 with the primary action and scope front-loaded, followed by purpose and read-only status. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or filler wording.

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-parameter, read-only list tool, the description is complete: it names the resource, institutional context, output type (course ids), and why that output matters. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit statement that it returns course ids. Minor ambiguity around 'currently visible' is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema has no properties, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meanings because there are none; it appropriately focuses on output and purpose instead.

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 ('List'), resource ('courses'), and scope ('student’s currently visible Blackboard (Syracuse University)'). It also says the output is course ids needed by every other blackboard tool, which distinguishes it as the foundational listing tool among the get_* siblings.

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 clearly implies usage context: call this first to obtain course ids needed by other tools. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just 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.