Get my quiz submission

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds no new behavioral context (e.g., what happens if no submission exists), but the annotation coverage lowers the bar. It neither contradicts nor enriches beyond the structured data.

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 a single 7-word sentence that encapsulates the entire purpose with zero fluff. It is front-loaded and every word earns its 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 a simple two-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It doesn't describe return values, but there is no output schema to set expectations, and the purpose is unambiguous. Minor omission: no explicit mention of handling missing submissions, but that's not strictly necessary given the read-only nature.

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%, with both parameters described ('Canvas numeric id' and 'Canvas course id'). The tool description does not add additional semantics beyond the 'classic quiz' qualifier, which is implicit in the purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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 gets the user's own attempt/submission for a classic quiz. It distinguishes from sibling tools like canvas_get_quiz (quiz details) and canvas_get_submission_feedback (feedback) by specifying 'own' and 'classic', making the resource and scope precise.

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 usage (retrieve your own submission for a classic quiz) but does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use. However, the sibling names make the distinction obvious, so the usage context is clear without explicit exclusions.

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