publisher-bank-quiz

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the workflow (parses into quiz_builder's JSON, renders preview HTML, delegates the write to quiz-builder) and notes that per-question points are an input. However, it does not clarify whether the write happens automatically after preview or requires further confirmation, nor does it mention permissions or side effects. Minor gap.

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 slightly long but every sentence contributes distinct information: purpose, process, features, usage, and triggers. It is well-organized and front-loaded. The trigger list adds length but improves practical usability.

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?

Given that there is an output schema and no parameters, the description is fairly complete. It covers the input format, workflow, supported item types, and how it relates to quiz-builder. It does not mention edge cases or failure modes, but this is not critical given the output schema exists.

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 input schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description adds extra semantics by stating 'per-question points are an input,' which reveals an implicit input mechanism not captured in the schema. This is valuable for an agent.

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 the exact function: converting a publisher's plain-text question bank into a Canvas CLASSIC quiz. It specifies the source formats (Liang/Pearson test bank, .txt/.docx), the process (parse, preview HTML, delegate to quiz-builder), and the supported item types. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like quiz-builder or create_quiz.

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?

It explicitly provides usage context: 'Use when the user has a chapter test-bank .txt (or .docx text) and wants it as a Canvas quiz.' It also lists concrete trigger phrases, including a non-English one, which helps an agent recognize when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.

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