blackboard_system_version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., whether it hits the network or requires an authenticated session), but for a trivial version lookup there is little else it could disclose.

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?

A single short phrase with no filler, front-loaded on the resource being returned. It lacks an explicit verb, which makes it slightly less crisp than an ideal definition, but nothing is wasted.

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 parameterless, read-only, no-output-schema utility, the description conveys the essential fact: it returns the Blackboard Learn server version. The only gap is the response format, which is minor here.

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?

Zero parameters, so per the rubric baseline is 4; the description has no parameter semantics to add and the empty schema leaves no ambiguity.

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 description names a specific resource ('Versión del servidor Blackboard Learn de UP'), so an agent knows this retrieves the institution's Blackboard Learn server version. It is not a tautology of the tool name, but it offers no differentiation from siblings since none of them deal with server metadata.

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 statement of when to call this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as blackboard_whoami for identity checks. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and description.

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