Lists locally downloaded Blackboard course materials with relative paths, sizes, and readable formats, without requiring a session or fetching new files.
Inventario local de descargas UP con rutas relativas, tamaños y formatos legibles. No requiere sesión ni descarga archivos nuevos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| maxDepth | No | ||
| maxFiles | No | ||
| subdirectory | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it is a local inventory, requires no session, and does not download new files. It does not describe rate limits or permissions, but with annotations covering safety, this is solid additional 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?
Two tight sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a key behavioral constraint without restating the tool name or title.
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 list tool with no output schema, the description gives useful return-value hints (relative paths, sizes, readable formats). Annotations cover safety, but the three input parameters remain completely unexplained, leaving a notable gap for an agent that needs to set depth, file limits, or a subdirectory filter.
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?
The schema has three parameters (maxDepth, maxFiles, subdirectory) with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention any of them or explain what they control, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 resource and scope: a local inventory of downloaded materials, including relative paths, sizes, and readable formats. It distinguishes itself from download tools by saying it does not download new files, but it does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings like search_downloaded_materials or read_downloaded_material.
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 description implies when to use it: for local inventory without requiring a session or fetching new files. However, it does not name alternatives or state when to prefer search_downloaded_materials or read_downloaded_material instead, leaving usage guidance implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.