blackboard_download

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing side effects and safety behavior: it generates a private local file, never overwrites, never executes, rejects arbitrary URLs/paths, and enforces a 100 MiB size limit. This is valuable context that the annotations alone do not provide.

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 tight sentences front-load the core purpose, then add constraints, safety guarantees, and return value summary. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 straightforward download tool with an output schema, the description covers key invocation facts: size limit, local side effect, no overwrite/execution, and return contents. The main gap is not explicitly pointing the agent to sibling tools for retrieving valid course/content/attachment IDs, but this is a minor omission given the clarity of the parameter names.

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 carries the burden, but it only partially compensates. The parameter names are self-explanatory and the phrase 'existing attachment' clarifies attachment_id, yet the description does not explain relationships between course, content_id, and attachment_id or how to discover valid values.

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 and resource: 'Download an existing attachment' with a size constraint and explicit destination. It also clarifies what it does not do ('No arbitrary URL/path, no overwrite or execution'), making it clearly distinguishable from related content-listing siblings like blackboard_content.

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 intended use case is implied: use this when you need to download an existing attachment identified by course, content_id, and attachment_id. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention how to obtain the required IDs from sibling tools such as blackboard_content or blackboard_course.

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