blackboard_get_discussion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool reads a discussion and includes the topic/prompt only when Blackboard exposes it, and implicitly states it does not return student posts. However, it omits details like error behavior, authentication requirements, or what happens if the discussion ID is invalid. For a read operation, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 with zero filler. The core purpose and caveat are in the first sentence, and the routing to a sibling is in the second. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read operation with two well-documented parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and the key limitation (no student posts). It does not describe the return format or error handling, but given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description is sufficient for correct invocation. Slightly more detail on expected return could push it to a 5.

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 descriptions for both parameters are complete (100% coverage), including the source for discussionId (from blackboard_list_discussions). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline without enhancing it.

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 action (read) on a specific resource (one Ultra discussion), and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by noting it includes the topic/prompt when exposed and directing to blackboard_list_discussion_messages for student posts. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 second sentence explicitly says 'Use blackboard_list_discussion_messages to read student posts,' which provides a clear when-not-to-use condition and names the alternative tool. This is a textbook example of routing guidance.

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