blackboard_list_course_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it is recursive, spans two file sources, and returns paths and IDs, plus the explicit note that it neither downloads nor reads file contents.

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 no waste: scope first (what is inventoried and what is returned), then capability and boundary. Nothing redundant.

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 5-param read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers source scope, return shape (paths, IDs), filtering, and the read-only boundary; annotations cover safety. Minor gap is that recursion/result limits and default behavior aren't mentioned, but the schema handles those.

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 80%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning (maxDepth, maxItems, maxResults all documented there). The description only adds that filtering is by name extension, mirroring the extensions param without new detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: a recursive inventory of two distinct file sources (REST attachments and embedded bbcswebdav files) with paths and IDs. This differentiates it from download/list siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name blackboard_list_attachments, which is its closest relative.

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?

The clause 'no descarga ni lee archivos' effectively signals when NOT to use this tool (i.e. use a download/read tool instead), and the extension filter hints at a common use case. However, no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-to-use framing is given, leaving routing to inference.

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