blackboard_attendance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, but the description adds value beyond them by specifying that the tool works from recorded data and does not fabricate proof. This clarifies that the output reflects existing records rather than newly created or manipulated attendance evidence. That is a meaningful behavioral disclosure not fully contained in 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?

The description is two sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and object. The negative statement is useful and earns its place. It is concise while conveying scope and exclusions.

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 five parameters, an enum, and no schema-level descriptions, this short description is insufficient for confident invocation. It does not explain the view variants, how meeting_id is used, or pagination behavior via limit and offset. The output schema exists, but the parameter ambiguity remains a significant gap.

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 for that gap. It only loosely aligns 'attendance or class meetings' with the view enum, but it gives no guidance on course, limit, offset, meeting_id, or the difference between 'meetings' and 'meeting'. Five parameters are effectively left unexplained, so the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('recorded attendance or class meetings'), making the core purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from any action-oriented tool by stating what it does not do: check in, fabricate proof, or change attendance. This is sufficiently distinct from siblings like blackboard_grades or blackboard_courses, which target different domains.

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 clearly establishes when to use this tool: when you need to read existing attendance records or class meetings. It also gives an explicit when-not by stating that it does not perform check-ins, fabricate proof, or modify attendance. However, it does not name any alternative tool to use for those operations, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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