Course quizzes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the 25-item cap and enumerating exactly which fields come back (open/close dates, time limit, attempts used vs allowed, best grade). It does not say what happens with zero quizzes or whether the 25 cap can be exceeded, but the added behavioral context is substantial.

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 user-facing questions, then the payload, then the input requirement — a sensible order with no filler. The second quoted example question largely duplicates the first sentence's prompts, so there is minor redundancy, but nothing bloated.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields and the 25-quiz ceiling, which is what an agent needs to decide whether the result is complete. Remaining gaps — empty-result behavior and pagination/truncation handling beyond the cap — are minor.

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 there is only one parameter, already documented as 'Moodle course ID. Use get_my_courses to find it.' The description restates the same guidance ('course_id, the ID from get_my_courses') without adding format or constraint detail, so the schema is doing the work and 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?

Opens with the concrete questions it answers (open date, attempts left, score) and then states the specific operation: listing up to 25 quizzes for one course with dates, time limit, attempt counts, and best grade. That is a precise verb+resource+scope. It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as get_my_grades or get_course_grade_items, so it stops short of a 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?

The framing questions and the worked example give a clear sense of when this tool is the right call (quiz timing/attempts/score for a single course), and it names get_my_courses as the prerequisite for obtaining course_id. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or routing to the grade-oriented siblings, which keeps it at 4.

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