blackboard_get_assignment_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is clear. The description adds that it gathers various components and reports incomplete queries, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'informa consultas incompletas' means operationally or any rate limits or auth requirements.

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, dense sentence that covers multiple aspects without unnecessary words. It front-loads the main purpose. However, the Spanish phrasing is somewhat cryptic and could be clearer for an international audience.

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 tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too terse. It doesn't explain what the returned metadata includes, how attempts are accessed, or what 'informa consultas incompletas' entails. Given the complexity of the data being aggregated and the lack of structured documentation, this is inadequate.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0% for both parameters (courseId and columnId), the description should compensate but provides no information about parameter meaning, format, or expected values beyond what's inferable from names. The pattern constraint is in the schema but not explained. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 it aggregates metadata, content instructions, attachments, and accessible attempts for an activity, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like blackboard_get_content or blackboard_list_assignments, and the term 'actividad' is somewhat generic for what appears to be an assignment details tool based on the name.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies it's for getting assignment details, but with many sibling tools related to assignments and content, it fails to clarify the selection context or alternatives.

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