blackboard_list_attachments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether results are paginated, whether it follows content hierarchy, or how embedded files differ from REST attachments, so it contributes essentially no behavioral context.

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?

It is a single short noun phrase with no padding, so there is no waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise. Nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing to front-load: no verb, no scope statement, no constraints.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what is returned, and it does not. For a two-required-parameter tool with a strongly patterned identifier requirement and multiple overlapping sibling tools, this definition omits both parameter semantics and return-format information an agent needs to call it correctly.

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% for both required parameters, which are only constrained by a regex ('^_\\d+_\\d+$'). The description never mentions courseId or contentId or explains the required identifier format, so it fails to compensate for the documentation gap even though 'un contenido' faintly gestures at contentId.

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 names the resource ('adjuntos REST y archivos incrustados de un contenido') but supplies no verb, and read as a noun phrase it largely restates the tool name blackboard_list_attachments. It does add the scope detail that both REST attachments and embedded files are included, which is more than pure tautology, but it does nothing to separate this tool from siblings such as blackboard_list_attempt_files, blackboard_list_course_files, or blackboard_list_contents.

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 call this tool versus the many sibling listing/downloading tools (blackboard_download_attachment, blackboard_list_course_files, blackboard_list_contents). No prerequisites, no workflow context, and no stated exclusions are given; the agent must infer everything from the name.

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