blackboard_download_feedback_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the experimental nature and the possibility that the endpoint may not be available on all versions, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it does not describe the download behavior (e.g., saving to disk, overwriting files, return value) or any error handling, leaving significant gaps.

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 exceptionally concise, with two sentences that deliver the core purpose, the critical provenance of the fileId, and an important caveat. Every phrase earns its place, and the [EXPERIMENTAL] tag is front-loaded for immediate attention.

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 provides key workflow context (how to obtain fileId) and a version caveat, but it lacks information about the output behavior (e.g., where the file is saved, what the function returns, whether it overwrites existing files). Given the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, this is a noticeable gap, though the schema hints at saving via filename/outputDir.

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 schema already provides descriptions for all 6 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, mainly reinforcing the fileId source. No additional semantics are provided for filename or outputDir beyond what schema already has.

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's function with a specific verb ('Download') and resource ('a feedback file attached to a graded attempt'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on feedback files and referencing the specific source of fileId from blackboard_get_assignment_feedback.

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 provides a clear usage context by instructing to use the fileId from blackboard_get_assignment_feedback → attempt.feedbackFiles. It also warns about potential unavailability on some Blackboard versions, which guides when to expect failures. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool.

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