blackboard_assessments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral note—'Permission-denied authoring fields are not bypassed'—which clarifies authorization behavior beyond what the annotations provide. However, it stops short of explaining what 'accessible' means in practice or how pagination and error cases behave.

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 the core purpose front-loaded and the security-relevant caveat placed second, with no filler or repetition of schema fields. The 'or' construction in the first sentence is slightly ambiguous, but the description is otherwise efficient and well ordered.

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?

The presence of an output schema covers return values and the rich annotations cover the safety profile, lowering the description's burden, yet critical operational details remain unstated: what value to pass for the required `course`, what `content_id` filters toward, and whether limit/offset paginate across assessments. A new agent would struggle to construct a correct first call without consulting external context.

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%, and the description mentions no parameters at all—course, limit, offset, and content_id receive no semantic explanation beyond their bare schema titles. The required `course` parameter's format and provenance (e.g., obtained from blackboard_courses) are left entirely to the agent to guess. With zero schema coverage, the description was obligated to compensate and did not.

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 verb and resource ('Discover assessments or read accessible assessment metadata'), which scopes the tool to assessment data and distinguishes it from sibling tools like blackboard_courses and blackboard_grades. The phrasing is clear enough for an agent to know what the tool operates on, though the 'Discover or read' construction leaves minor ambiguity about whether these are two distinct operation modes.

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 offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as blackboard_grades or blackboard_content, and names no exclusions or alternative tools. An agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and resource scope. The permission caveat hints at a limitation but provides no routing logic.

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