blackboard_download

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

The description discloses meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: the file is generated, private, and local; overwrite and execution are disallowed; and the return payload is path, bytes, and SHA-256. This adds real context and does not contradict the 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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences carry the full message: action first, constraints second, return value third. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

Operational details such as safety constraints, side effects, and return values are covered, and an output schema exists. The main gap is that the description does not explain how to obtain the three identifiers, though sibling tools and parameter naming make this reasonably inferable.

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 explain how course, content_id, and attachment_id relate or where these values come from. The parameter names and regex patterns hint at their purpose, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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: download an existing attachment to a generated private local file. It also states concrete limits (<=100 MiB) and the output format, making it easy to tell apart from other Blackboard read/list tools.

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 clearly says when to use the tool: when you have an existing attachment identified by course, content_id, and attachment_id, and it is within the size limit. The 'No arbitrary URL/path, no overwrite or execution' clause provides useful negative boundaries, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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