Read a link posted in Blackboard

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds crucial context: it states it 'never submits, joins, or types anything' and explains pagination behavior with next_offset. It also notes limitations like YouTube refusing transcripts. The main omission is that it doesn't describe error conditions or rate limits, but for a read-only tool with annotations, this is well-covered.

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 dense but front-loaded with the core action and supported types. It could be slightly trimmed, but every sentence contributes information about capabilities, input sources, or constraints. It remains focused despite its length.

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?

Given the complexity of resolving various link types, the description provides a comprehensive list of supported content, input sources, access restrictions, pagination details, and note about no output schema. It fully equips an agent to invoke the tool correctly, with no significant gaps.

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 schema fully documents all three parameters. The description mentions next_offset and offset in its pagination note, and implies course_id via the access constraint, but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (open) and resource (a link posted in Blackboard), and enumerates the content types it resolves (Google Docs, Slides, PDFs, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_attachment or get_course_content, which reference links but do not open them.

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?

Explicitly specifies the source of its inputs ('Links come from the "links" field of get_course_content, get_announcements and get_assignment_context') and the access constraint ('Only links that appear in the student's own courses can be opened'). This provides clear when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance without relying on inference.

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