List classic quizzes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile well. The description adds the specific distinction between classic and New Quizzes, which is useful context but not additional behavioral disclosure beyond what annotations imply. No contradiction exists, and the added value is modest, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences with zero wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the critical exclusion (New Quizzes) is stated immediately after. It is highly concise and well-structured, earning a perfect score.

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 tool with only one parameter, no output schema, and annotations that already cover safety and idempotency, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what will be returned (classic quizzes) and what will not, and the instruction is self-contained. Nothing essential is missing.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (courseId) with a description. The description does not add any extra meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema states. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is given when schema covers parameters fully, and there's no additional information provided in the description.

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 (List) and resource (classic quizzes in a course), and explicitly distinguishes from New Quizzes, which is a key differentiator among sibling tools like canvas_list_assignments and canvas_list_new_quizzes. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately clear.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (to list classic quizzes) and when not to (New Quizzes do not appear here), and provides the alternative (canvas_list_assignments). This is direct usage guidance with a named alternative, fulfilling the requirement completely.

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