blackboard_download_course_materials

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the write profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: only accessible content is traversed and failures/omissions are recorded in manifest.json. It omits auth/permission requirements, rate limits, and what happens on partial failure beyond the manifest.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the primary action is front-loaded ahead of the exclusion. It is arguably too terse for a bulk operation with side effects, which keeps it from a 5.

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 side-effecting bulk downloader with no output schema, the description covers the main flow, the manifest artifact, and the submissions exclusion. It leaves gaps on permissions, the courseId format, and behavior on partial/interrupted runs, so an agent knows roughly what happens but not all the constraints.

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 description mentions no parameter at all. With schema coverage at only 50% and courseId carrying an unexplained pattern (^_\d+_\d+$) and no description, the description needed to compensate and does not; only outputDir is documented, and that is in the schema, not the description.

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?

States specific verbs and resources: traverses accessible contents/activities, downloads materials, and writes a manifest.json. This is clearly a bulk-download tool, distinct from single-file siblings like blackboard_download_attachment and from list-only tools like blackboard_list_downloaded_materials. It stops short of naming a sibling, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 clause 'No hace entregas' gives one explicit exclusion, and 'contenidos y actividades accesibles' implies the scope of use. However, it never says when to prefer this over blackboard_download_attachment, blackboard_download_file_url, or blackboard_list_downloaded_materials, so the alternative-routing is only implied.

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