blackboard_assessments

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a meaningful behavioral nuance: permission-denied authoring fields are not bypassed, which clarifies exactly what 'accessible' means. This goes beyond the annotation hints and helps set expectations for access control.

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?

The description is only two sentences with no redundant phrasing. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a valuable caveat without unnecessary detail.

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 tool has four parameters but the description omits any mention of pagination (limit/offset) or filtering by content_id, relying on conventional parameter names and an output schema. The permission caveat is helpful, but the missing parameter guidance and lack of usage direction leave the definition only minimally adequate for a 4-parameter tool.

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 provides no explanation of the four parameters (course, content_id, limit, offset). An agent is left to infer that course is a contextual scope, content_id filters, and limit/offset paginate—none of which is explicitly stated. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 identifies the resource (assessments) and the operation (discover/read accessible metadata), which is specific enough to signal the domain. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like blackboard_content or blackboard_grades, so the boundary is implied rather than stated with full clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of related alternatives such as blackboard_content or blackboard_grades. The sentence about permission-denied fields is a limitation note, not a usage directive, leaving the agent without conditions or exclusions to select the right tool.

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