Generate quizzes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool regenerates quiz slides and re-renders the deck, implying mutation of existing content. It also describes the distractor structure (misconception and groundedIn provenance), adding valuable context. However, it doesn't explicitly warn about overwriting existing quizzes or mention required permissions, so it's not a 5.

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?

Three concise sentences, each adding unique value: action, distractor details, and placement. No filler or repetition. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how it behaves, and where the results appear. It could mention the return value or more explicit parameter names, but overall it is quite complete for selecting and invoking this tool.

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 0%, but the description compensates well. It references 'every N core concepts' which maps directly to the everyNConcepts parameter and implies its purpose. 'EXISTING deck' implies the deckId parameter. It doesn't specify types or formats, but with only two simple parameters, this is sufficient.

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 action ('Regenerate misconception-grounded quiz slides') on a specific resource ('an EXISTING deck') and also mentions re-rendering. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like generate_deck (creates new decks) and render_deck (renders without generating quizzes).

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 gives clear usage context: it operates on an existing deck and specifies placement ('after every N core concepts, before the section summary'). It implies the tool is for updating/refreshing quizzes rather than creating new decks, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use.

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