blackboard_list_discussions

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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context beyond that: results are limited to Ultra courses and Original-course forums are not guaranteed, plus it explicitly clarifies it does not post messages. This is useful scoping behavior not captured by annotations.

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 the core purpose front-loaded and the filtering/limits stated right after. No filler, though the phrasing packs several constraints into the second clause.

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?

Covers purpose, filters, and key limitations, and since no output schema exists the description needn't detail return values. It is nonetheless incomplete on the required courseId format/scope and on what the listing returns, which matters for a filterable list 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%, so the description must compensate. It names two filters (título, evaluables) matching the title and gradable params, but says nothing about the required courseId or its required _X_Y pattern, leaving one of three parameters unexplained.

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: listings of accessible discussions in an Ultra course, with filtering. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like blackboard_list_discussion_messages and blackboard_get_discussion by noting it does not publish messages, though it does not name the alternatives explicitly.

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?

Provides some when-not guidance ('no publica mensajes', 'no garantiza foros en cursos Original'), which scopes usage. However, it does not name explicit alternatives or state when to prefer a sibling tool, 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.