blackboard_list_contents

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 no behavioral context beyond that—no pagination, no scope limits, no note on what a 'carpeta' (folder) id implies versus a course id.

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 short, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than economy—a single noun phrase with no verb, no front-loaded action, and no structure to guide an agent. Not a case of efficient conciseness.

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 listing tool with no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and a large sibling set, the description omits return shape, pagination, and how courseId vs parentId scope the results. An agent has enough to guess but not enough to invoke confidently.

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 two parameters, so the description must compensate. It only loosely hints that one parameter is a course and another a folder ('curso o carpeta'), without mapping to courseId/parentId, stating the required vs optional distinction, or explaining the opaque _\d+_\d+ id pattern.

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 'Materiales de un curso o carpeta' names a resource (course/folder materials) and implies a listing operation, but the verb is absent and there is no differentiation from close siblings like blackboard_list_course_files, blackboard_list_attachments, or blackboard_get_content. An agent cannot tell from the text alone which of these retrieves what.

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 when-to-use guidance, no indication of when to prefer this over the many sibling list/get tools, and no prerequisites stated. The only implied usage is 'when you want materials', which is too weak to route selection among ~60 siblings.

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