preview_owned_exam_questions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the single most important behavioral risk: do not proceed to final submission. It still omits what the preview actually does to browser/window state, whether it is read-only, and what the agent gets back, so the safety profile is only partially 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?

A single short sentence with the operational warning placed where it will be read. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than optimal concision.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, yet the description never says what the preview yields or how to obtain the questions afterwards (e.g. read_owned_exam_question). For an exam-flow tool in a dense sibling set, this leaves the agent without the context needed to chain calls correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 verb 'Open' and the object 'preview' are present, but the description never states that the preview is of an owned exam's questions, nor does it differentiate from close siblings such as audit_exam_preview, audit_exam_browser_preview, or inspect_exam_page. An agent can infer the general idea from the tool name but gets no confirmation of scope from the description.

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?

'Never click final submission' is a useful guardrail implying this is the safe pre-submission step, which gives implied usage context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call it versus the many other exam-preview and exam-loop siblings, so routing remains guesswork.

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