blackboard_get_assignment_feedback

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is low. The description adds real value beyond them by warning that associated files 'pueden tener permisos diferentes y no son necesariamente retroalimentación del docente' — a permission and data-provenance caveat an agent would otherwise not anticipate.

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 compact sentences with the core scope stated first and the parameter caveat second. No filler; the only weakness is that the opening fragment omits a verb, which slightly reduces front-loaded clarity.

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 2-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the return contents and the file caveat, but omits the courseId format requirement and does not clarify how the result relates to attempt IDs the agent must already hold. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain includeAttemptFiles well (it additionally fetches associated files with possibly different permissions), but courseId — the only required parameter with a strict pattern — receives no explanation at all in either schema or 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?

The description names the resource and the returned content ('último intento accesible por actividad, nota y comentarios'), which lets an agent infer it retrieves feedback on an assignment attempt. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb and no explicit differentiation from close siblings such as blackboard_get_attempt or blackboard_list_attempt_files, leaving the exact operation ambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (get_attempt, list_attempts, list_attempt_files, get_grade_detail). The only conditional guidance is the includeAttemptFiles caveat, which is about a parameter rather than tool selection.

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