blackboard_list_attachments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does well by disclosing that images, audio, and video are returned as MCP resource_link blocks, while attachment metadata remains available as a download fallback. It also specifies which content item types are supported. It does not cover pagination, errors, or explicit read-only guarantees, but the disclosed behavior is substantial.

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 sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the additional behavioral details about media resource links and download fallback are concise and relevant.

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 tool is simple, has only two well-documented parameters, and no output schema. The description explains the input context, supported attachment types, and the return shape at a useful level. A few details like no-attachments behavior or authentication requirements are absent, but the description is otherwise sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds relevant context by explaining that contentId refers to a course content item and can include embedded files, but it does not add meaningful format or syntax details beyond the schema descriptions for courseId and contentId.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'List file attachments for a course content item.' It also clarifies the relevant content types (x-bb-file, embedded document/assignment HTML), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like blackboard_download_attachment or blackboard_list_contents.

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 when to use the tool by defining the input scope, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as blackboard_download_attachment. The mention of 'download fallback' hints at a related workflow, but no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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