canvas_quiz

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: 'visible to you' signals permission-scoped visibility, 'classic quiz' scopes which quiz type this covers, and 'never starts an attempt' explicitly forecloses a side effect an agent might otherwise assume from a quiz 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?

A single compact sentence with no filler; the read scope comes first and the side-effect disclaimer trails it as the most decision-relevant qualifier.

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 four-parameter read tool with fully documented params and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers purpose and the key behavioral caveat. It is slightly thin on return shape and on pagination expectations via the page parameter, though the schema mitigates the latter.

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%, so quiz_id, course_id, page and raw are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no further meaning about these parameters — notably it does not explain the raw/UTC-vs-localized time tradeoff, which is the one place a sentence would have helped. 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 ('Read') and a specific resource scope ('classic quiz instructions, dates and settings'), which separates it from the list-level canvas_quizzes and from canvas_quiz_submission. It never names a sibling outright, but the 'classic quiz' qualifier and metadata focus make the target unambiguous.

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 starts an attempt' gives one useful negative condition, telling the agent this is not the tool for taking a quiz. However, there is no explicit routing guidance pointing to canvas_quizzes for discovery or canvas_quiz_submission for attempting, so the when-to-use-vs-alternatives is only implied.

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