blackboard_get_content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that – no mention of auth requirements, rate limits, error behavior, or whether missing/inaccessible content is handled differently. It repeats only the return-content notion implied by the name.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the resource being retrieved. It is efficient, though it wastes a little space enumerating 'contenido, actividad o documento' without clarifying the distinction.

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?

No output schema exists and parameter coverage is 0%, so the description must carry more weight than it does. It never clarifies what distinguishes a 'contenido' from an 'actividad' or 'documento', how the IDs are sourced, or the relationship to list_contents/search_contents, leaving an agent with gaps for a two-required-parameter tool.

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% and both parameters are required with an opaque Blackboard ID pattern (^_\d+_\d+$). The description provides no information about courseId or contentId, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap; only the self-evident parameter names carry meaning.

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 phrase 'Detalle y enunciado de un contenido, actividad o documento de una sección' does convey that this returns the detail/body of a single content item, but it is a noun phrase with no action verb and offers no differentiation from close siblings like blackboard_list_contents or blackboard_search_contents. An agent must infer that this is the single-item retrieval counterpart to those list/search tools.

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 guidance on when to use this versus the many sibling retrieval tools. Nothing indicates it requires IDs obtained from list_contents/search_contents, nor any condition or exclusion that would route an agent here rather than elsewhere.

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