blackboard_attendance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond those annotations by confirming it does not check in, fabricate proof, or change attendance, which prevents misuse for actions that an agent might otherwise associate with an attendance tool. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentences with the primary action front-loaded and exclusions compactly stated in the second sentence. There is no filler, repetition of schema details, or unnecessary elaboration.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, but with five parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description leaves important invocation details undocumented, such as the required course field and how meeting_id filters the results. It is adequate for a high-level understanding but not fully complete for every intended call.

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 does not compensate. It never explains that course is required, how view and meeting_id relate, or what limit and offset control. The phrase 'attendance or class meetings' loosely maps to the view enum, but the agent is left to infer most parameter semantics from field names and defaults.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and a clear resource ('recorded attendance or class meetings'), and the negative clause explicitly rules out check-in, proof fabrication, and attendance changes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like blackboard_grades or blackboard_calendar by scope and behavior.

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 implies usage for reading attendance/meeting records and warns against expecting write behavior, but it does not name alternative tools or state explicit conditions for choosing this tool over siblings such as blackboard_courses or blackboard_calendar. The usage context is clear but not fully explicit.

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