blackboard_get_assignment_feedback

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the tool shows score, instructor comments, and feedback files for graded submissions, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state it is read-only, nor does it clarify how feedback files are represented or whether ungraded submissions are omitted.

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 key action and resource. No filler or redundant wording; every phrase adds value.

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?

With no output schema, the description gives a high-level summary of the return content (score, comments, feedback files) but lacks structural detail. It is adequate for a simple read tool but leaves ambiguity about the exact response format and relationship to other feedback-related tools.

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 only parameter, courseId, is already fully described in the schema with a pattern and description. The tool description does not add additional meaning about the parameter's usage or role within the tool.

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 identifies the action (get), resource (assignment feedback/scores), and scope (all assignments in a course). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_grades or download_feedback_file by combining feedback, scores, and attached files into one tool.

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 implies usage for retrieving professor feedback and scores, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like blackboard_get_grades or blackboard_download_feedback_file. No exclusions or conditional guidance are provided.

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