blackboard_download_feedback_file

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

Annotations already mark it as non-read-only, non-idempotent, and open-world. The description adds the experimental status and version limitation, which is useful context. It does not disclose the download destination or potential side effects, but the schema parameters hint at that.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and the second sentence provides the key workflow instruction. No wasted words; the experimental caveat is integrated naturally.

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 tool's complexity (6 params, 4 required, no output schema), the description explains the crucial workflow dependency (blackboard_get_assignment_feedback) and the potential unavailability. It does not describe the return value or output path, but the schema covers the output parameters, making it sufficiently complete.

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. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the provenance of fileId, attemptId, and columnId from blackboard_get_assignment_feedback, and notes the filename defaults to the name in feedbackFiles, which goes beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool downloads a feedback file attached to a graded attempt, identifies the exact source of the fileId, and distinguishes this from generic attachment/download tools by referencing the feedback workflow. The experimental note adds clarity about its reliability.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use the fileId from blackboard_get_assignment_feedback, establishing a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like blackboard_download_attachment, though the feedback-specific focus implies when to use it.

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