blackboard_content

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds value beyond annotations by explicitly stating the tool has no side effects on learning progress or external systems: 'Does not mark content complete or launch LTI/tests.' This is meaningful behavioral context an agent would not otherwise know.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the core actions, the second gives a usage tip, the third states exclusions. The most important information is front-loaded, with zero filler or repetition of schema/annotation data.

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?

For a read-only browse tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it operates on, how to handle large result sets, and the behavior boundary (no completion/LTI side effects). The only minor gap is lack of explicit sibling routing, but the exclusion statement partially compensates.

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 values ('Browse ROOT/folder children' → children, 'search' → search, 'list links/attachments' → links/attachments, 'inspect content' → item) and implies offset/limit usage via 'Traverse children for large courses.' However, it does not explain the semantics of course, content_id, or query directly, leaving those parameters under-documented.

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 differentiates the tool from siblings like blackboard_grades, blackboard_assessments, and blackboard_calendar. The clause 'Does not mark content complete or launch LTI/tests' further disambiguates it from content-launch or assessment 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?

The description gives operational guidance: 'Traverse children for large courses' signals when pagination/iteration is warranted. The exclusion clause 'Does not mark content complete or launch LTI/tests' provides a when-not-to-use boundary. However, it never names explicit sibling alternatives (e.g., 'use blackboard_assessments for grading'), leaving some routing to inference.

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