List course participants

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. The description adds the behavioral context that it returns roles and is useful for contact/group identification, but it doesn't disclose details like pagination behavior, default limit, or whether the roster is filtered by the 'role' parameter. This is acceptable given the annotations cover the read-only nature.

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 with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, and the use cases are concise and informative.

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 list tool with one required parameter and an output schema absent, the description is sufficient. It explains the purpose and use cases, and the schema covers the parameters. It could mention pagination or default limit behavior, but given the tool's simplicity and annotations, it is nearly 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?

Schema description coverage is 67%: courseId and role have descriptions, but limit has none. The description adds meaning by explaining the purpose of the roster (roles, contact, group members), which helps interpret the role parameter. However, it doesn't add detail about the limit parameter or the exact format of the role values beyond the schema's enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool lists people enrolled in a course with their roles, using a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('people enrolled in a course'). It also provides concrete use cases (finding an instructor, identifying group members) that distinguish it from sibling tools like bb_list_courses or bb_get_course.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool ('finding an instructor to contact, or identifying group members'), which implies it is for roster-related queries. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use cases are specific enough to guide an agent.

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