blackboard_content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond these by explicitly stating the tool will not mark content complete or launch LTI/tests, which is a behavioral constraint an agent would not otherwise know. It also hints at traversal/pagination behavior with 'Traverse children for large courses'.

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 filler. The core capabilities are front-loaded, followed by a single sentence of exclusions and a traversal hint. Every clause contributes to understanding the tool's behavior and boundaries.

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?

Given the read-only annotations, an output schema, and an enum-driven view parameter, the description covers the essential behaviors and exclusions. It is slightly incomplete on how `query` and `content_id` are used, but the overall picture — browse, search, list, traverse, no side effects — is sufficient for correct selection and basic invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does map the view enum to actions ('Browse ROOT/folder children' → children, 'inspect content' → item, 'search' → search, 'list links/attachments' → links/attachments) and implies limit/offset via 'Traverse children'. However, it does not explain `query`, `content_id`, or how they relate to specific views, leaving some parameters semantically under-specified.

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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'Browse ROOT/folder children', 'inspect content', 'search or list links/attachments'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like blackboard_courses (course list) and blackboard_grades/assessments (other course areas), and the explicit 'Does not mark content complete or launch LTI/tests' further delimits its scope.

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: to browse, inspect, search, or list content items, and to traverse children for large courses. It also states exclusions (does not mark complete or launch LTI/tests), though it does not name specific alternative tools. This is strong but not fully explicit about when-not-to-use versus alternatives.

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