Tjaz

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

Annotations already declare the write, non-idempotent, non-destructive profile; the description adds the auth requirement and the fact that output includes a QR code and ties play results to a specific class/group. It stops short of saying whether repeat calls mint new distinct links or how the link is returned.

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 sentences: the core action and effect first, the auth prerequisite second. Slight redundancy in 'results ... can be seen on their own', but nothing is padded out.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema this covers the essentials; however, it never clarifies what the caller gets back (URL, QR image, or both) or how the implicit class/group scoping is determined, which are the main open questions before invoking it.

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 coverage is 100% and the single `quiz` parameter is documented as 'id or link', so the description only adds the constraint that the quiz be one 'the user made'. It mentions 'one class or group' yet no such parameter exists in the schema, leaving that scoping unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('makes a link to a quiz ... with a QR code') plus the downstream effect (per-class results tracking), which is more than the title alone. It never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts with make_quiz/quiz_results, so it falls short of 5.

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?

It gives one useful precondition ('Needs the user logged in to Tjaz') but no guidance on when to choose this over make_quiz or quiz_results, and no when-not case. Usage must be inferred from the scenario described.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds real value by disclosing fuzzy word matching ('typos are forgiven') and that each hit comes with a playable link. It stops short of saying how many results return or whether they are ranked, which matters for a search tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the usage trigger; nothing is padding. The phrasing 'who they're for' is slightly loose for what the schema calls players, but it reads quickly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and three of four parameters are at least gestured at. The gap is the undocumented language filter and any hint about result volume or ordering in a zero-required-parameter search.

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?

With 75% schema coverage and heavily documented enums for players and subject, the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only adds that 'words' (search) tolerate typos, and never mentions the language parameter at all.

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?

States a specific verb (finds) and resource (quizzes made by others on tjaz.com/quizzes), plus what the result contains (a link to play each). The qualifier 'others have made' separates it from make_quiz, save_quiz and get_quiz without needing the 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?

'Use this when the user wants a quiz that may already exist, or quizzes to play' gives a clear positive trigger condition. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name a sibling for the create-new case (make_quiz), leaving that inference to the agent.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: right answers are returned only to the quiz creator, and the tool reports whether a quiz being made is ready. Error handling and response formatting details are not covered.

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 front-loaded and compact, using a single dense sentence plus a short clause. It is efficient, though the semicolon-separated field list is slightly run-on and could be broken up for readability.

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, single-parameter tool with annotations covering safety, the description provides enough detail about what is returned, including conditional visibility of right answers and readiness status. Minor gaps like exact response shape or error behavior remain, but are not critical.

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?

The schema fully documents the single parameter, and the description adds a useful example of the link format (tjaz.com/q/…). This goes slightly beyond the schema, though the parameter meaning is already clear.

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 states it retrieves a quiz by id or link and enumerates the returned fields: title, audience, questions, links, conditional right answers, and readiness. It distinguishes itself from find_quizzes implicitly by requiring an id/link rather than searching, though it does not explicitly name siblings.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when you already have a quiz id or link. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus find_quizzes or quiz_results, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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

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

Beyond the annotations (non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent), the description discloses that generation is AI-driven, usually completes within a minute, and may return an in-progress link that requires polling via get_quiz. That async fallback is genuinely important invocation context. It does not mention rate limits, quota, or what happens on failure.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the first sentence is bloated with marketing-style clauses ('play it alone, in a 3D game or together on a big screen'), which are output-format details the output schema already covers. The later sentences about timing and language are tighter and earn their place.

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 an 8-parameter generation tool with a rich schema and an output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: call condition, timing expectation, and the get_quiz polling fallback. Nothing critical is absent, though the async failure path is left unspecified.

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 100% and every parameter is well documented in the schema itself, including defaults and enums. The description only restates the language default ('in the language of the description, unless language is given'), which the schema already conveys, so no value is added beyond baseline.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Tjaz writes a multiple-choice quiz ... from a description'), so an agent knows it generates a new quiz rather than finding, saving, or translating one. The core purpose is clear, though it is wrapped in a long sentence that mixes in output modes and sharing.

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?

'Use this when the user asks for a quiz about a subject and hasn't written the questions' gives an explicit trigger plus an implicit exclusion (if the user already wrote questions, this is not the tool). It also routes the agent to get_quiz for checking readiness, naming the sibling explicitly.

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

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

Annotations cover read-only and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds key constraints beyond annotations: never names, only aggregate numbers, minimum 5 players, and requires login. These are critical for correct use.

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?

Front-loads the outcome and includes only relevant details, but the main sentence is long and packs multiple clauses. Still efficient and free of filler.

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 annotations and full schema coverage, the description supplies the missing behavioral context: privacy, authentication, minimum sample size, and what results include. No output schema exists, yet return contents are summarized adequately.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines quiz id/link and optional classLink. The description restates classLink scope ('for everyone or for one class link') and adds that the quiz must be one the user made, but adds little format or syntax detail 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?

Explicitly describes retrieval of quiz results: number of players, average correct, per-question accuracy sorted hardest first, scoped to all players or one class link. This is clearly distinct from siblings like get_quiz (quiz content) and find_quizzes (quiz discovery).

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?

States the scope (everyone or one class link) and prerequisites (user logged in, at least 5 players), but does not explicitly say when to choose it over get_quiz or find_quizzes, nor when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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

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

Annotations only declare the write/safety profile; the description adds real context beyond them: the return value (a playable/shareable link), the play modes, and that Tjaz validates the quiz against its terms before saving. It does not mention duplicate handling or that repeated calls create separate quizzes (non-idempotent), which is the one behavioral trait an agent could still get wrong.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and outcome, then the usage trigger, then the validation caveat — a sensible order. The opening sentence runs long with three embedded clauses and could be split, but nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is optional, yet the description still tells the agent a link comes back and what it is for. Combined with the terms-validation note, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly for a 5-parameter write 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 coverage is 80% and the schema already documents title, public, players, language, and the nested question shape in detail. The description adds no parameter-level meaning of its own beyond restating that questions are multiple-choice, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Saves a multiple-choice quiz ... on Tjaz') plus the result ('gives back a link to play it alone, in a 3D game or together on a big screen'). It gestures at a distinction from make_quiz via 'whose questions are already written', but then adds 'or asks you to write them', which blurs that boundary rather than sharpening it.

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?

'Use this when the user has the questions, e.g. pasted them, or asks you to write them' gives a clear trigger condition. However, no alternative is named, so an agent facing a sibling like make_quiz or find_quizzes gets no routing guidance and must infer the split, which the ambiguous 'or asks you to write them' makes harder.

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

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

Annotations already declare this is non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations by disclosing the expected latency ('Takes up to a minute') and that the result is a link to the translation.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. The primary action and return value are front-loaded, and the latency note follows as useful supplementary context.

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 full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations that cover safety and idempotency, the description supplies what is still needed for correct invocation: the action, the return artifact, and the expected duration. Nothing critical is missing for a two-parameter translation 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 100%, and both parameters are clearly documented in the schema, including the expected language-code format. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond saying the quiz is translated into another language, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Translates a quiz on Tjaz into another language.' It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_quiz, make_quiz, and save_quiz because it is the only translation operation, and it also names the return artifact ('link to the translation').

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 implies when to use it by saying it translates a quiz into another language, but it does not explicitly say when to use this versus alternatives such as make_quiz or save_quiz. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-routing guidance are provided.

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