blackboard_grades

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

Annotations already mark the tool readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds useful context by emphasizing only visible grades and EXISTING attempts/feedback, and by ruling out test/attempt creation. This aligns with and enriches 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?

Two short sentences front-load the resource scope and then state the critical negative behavior. There is no filler, and the emphasis on 'EXISTING' and 'Never' is purposeful.

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 read-only safety context is complete, but the tool exposes six parameters and nine view modes with no guidance on what each returns or how column_id/attempt_id should be used. An agent could invoke it safely but may not select the correct view or filters.

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 needed to explain the six parameters, but it does not mention course, view, limit, offset, column_id, or attempt_id. Parameter names and the view enum are self-suggestive, yet the description adds no semantic detail beyond them.

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 identifies a clear read-only purpose: returning visible grades and existing attempts/feedback. The explicit negation 'Never starts a test, creates an attempt or submits answers' differentiates it from assessment-related siblings without needing to open schemas.

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 an explicit when-not boundary by stating the tool never starts tests or creates attempts, which prevents misuse for assessment-taking. It does not name the alternative tool, so it stops short of fully routing the agent.

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