blackboard_list_attachments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the explicit mention of supported file types adds useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose return structure, error behavior for unsupported types, or pagination, leaving some 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 two concise sentences with no extraneous information. It front-loads the core purpose and adds the file-type detail efficiently.

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 list tool with full schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate. However, since there is no output schema, the description does not explain what the returned list contains (e.g., filenames, URLs) or how unsupported file types are handled, which is a notable gap for an agent.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions and patterns for both parameters (courseId and contentId). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 lists file attachments for a course content item, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself by specifying the supported file types (x-bb-file and x-bb-document), differentiating it from sibling tools like blackboard_download_attachment.

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 clear context on when to use the tool by specifying that it works for x-bb-file (REST API) and x-bb-document (embedded files in body HTML). While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the file-type scope gives the agent sufficient guidance for selection.

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