blackboard_get_grades

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation but discloses no additional behavioral context such as authentication needs, rate limits, return format, or side effects. The basic 'get' semantics are clear, but nothing beyond 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the core purpose efficiently, though it is slightly under-specified rather than overly verbose.

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 tool with one well-defined parameter, the description covers the basic action but omits details about the return payload or potential errors. With no output schema, the description should compensate, and it does not fully do so, but the tool's low complexity keeps it minimally viable.

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 documents the lone parameter (courseId) with type, pattern, and description, yielding 100% coverage. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate per the rubric.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('all grades') with clear scoping ('for the current student in a course'). This distinguishes it from siblings that deal with assignments or feedback, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where a sibling like get_assignment_feedback or list_attempts would be more appropriate, nor any prerequisites or context for invoking it.

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