List known Blackboard endpoints

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, so the description is free to add context. It does so by disclosing the output contents (operation name, path template, local overrides) and the fact that this is server-local knowledge, which is meaningful beyond the annotation.

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 sentences deliver the main functional claim, the output details, and the recommended use case without wasted words. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple read-only listing tool with one optional parameter, the description covers what the tool returns and why an agent would use it. No output schema exists, but the description explicitly names the key output fields, making the behavior sufficiently complete.

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 single optional parameter 'filter' is fully documented in the schema as a 'Case-insensitive substring filter.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description specifies a precise verb and resource: 'Shows every Blackboard API endpoint this server knows,' and details exactly what is included (operation name, path template, local overrides). This clearly differentiates it from other list tools like bb_list_courses or bb_list_content.

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?

It gives clear context by stating 'Useful for discovering what to pass to bb_raw_request,' which tells the agent when this tool adds value. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to sibling tools, so it stops short of a full 5.

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