blackboard_get_content_review_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds that it does not mark content as reviewed and that non-reviewable content is not treated as pending, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not explain what the response looks like or any rate limits, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words, front-loading the core action and then adding an important clarification. The structure is efficient and easy to parse, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by leading with the main action before the clarification.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema and low schema description coverage, the description should do more to explain what 'estado de revisión' entails (e.g., possible statuses) and when to use it. It covers the non-reviewable case but omits other contextual details like prerequisites or typical return values. 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 for parameter meaning. It does not mention courseId or contentId at all, leaving the agent to infer their purpose from names and patterns. However, the parameters are self-explanatory (courseId, contentId) and required, so the baseline of 3 for minimal viable parameter semantics is justified, though the description could have added value by explaining the ID format or constraints.

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 a specific verb ('Lee') and resource ('estado de revisión propio de un contenido'), clearly identifying it reads the review status of a content item. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like blackboard_get_content or blackboard_get_course_review_summary, so it falls short of a 5. The scope ('propio de un contenido configurado como revisable') is clear but the name already conveys most of this.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions that non-reviewable content is not interpreted as pending, which clarifies an edge case but does not tell the agent when to choose this tool over siblings like get_content or get_course_review_summary. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements are present.

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