uclass_list_recordings

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it uses the student's existing Campus SSO once and reads Class over HTTP. It also clarifies that only published recordings are included and that the scope is one course. It does not describe the return format, but the annotations already establish a safe, read-only, idempotent operation.

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 crisp sentences. The first front-loads the primary purpose and scope; the second adds relevant auth and protocol behavior. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 one-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool, this description is largely complete: it identifies the course ID input, the scope, and the auth mechanism. It does not explicitly state the response shape or behavior when no recordings exist, but the list semantics and simple input make this a minor omission.

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 fully documents courseId with a pattern and description ('Blackboard course ID'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds little new parameter-level meaning beyond confirming the single-course scope, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('List'), a specific resource ('published UPC Class recordings'), and a clear scope ('for one Blackboard course'). This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like uclass_search_transcript and uclass_read_transcript, which deal with transcripts rather than recordings.

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 intended use is implied by the purpose: call this when you need published recordings for a single course. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives such as blackboard_list_contents or uclass_search_transcript, and no exclusionary conditions are stated.

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