canvas_start_quiz_attempt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('start') but doesn't explain what 'starting a quiz attempt' entails—whether it's a read-only preview, a timed session, requires authentication, has side effects, or what the expected outcome is. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 the complexity of starting a quiz attempt (likely a write operation with side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on permissions, return values, error conditions, or how it fits into the broader quiz workflow, leaving the agent under-informed for effective use.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'course_id' and 'quiz_id'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or contextual constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 'Start a new quiz attempt' clearly states the action (start) and resource (quiz attempt), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'canvas_get_quiz' or 'canvas_submit_assignment', which would require more specificity for a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., quiz must exist, user must be enrolled), exclusions, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'canvas_get_quiz' or 'canvas_submit_assignment', leaving the agent with minimal context for decision-making.

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