edubase_get_quiz_permission

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond what these annotations provide. There is no mention of return format, error handling, required permissions, or side effects. The description does not contradict annotations, but it also does not add value beyond them.

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, clear sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately short and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It could be slightly improved by adding a `(read-only)` or similar context, but it is efficient for its simplicity.

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 are 3 required parameters and an output schema exists, the tool is relatively simple. The description is adequate for a simple read-only check. However, it does not explain what the output looks like (the output schema is not shown but exists) or mention the boolean nature of the check. The description is minimally complete for this tool's complexity.

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 the input schema already describes all parameters adequately. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline score is 3 because the schema is complete; the description adds no extra context here.

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 clearly states it checks if a user has a specific permission on a quiz. The verb 'check', resource 'user', and object 'quiz' are present. However, it does not differentiate from sibling permission-checking tools (e.g., edubase_get_exam_permission, edubase_get_class_permission), relying on context from its name. This is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are numerous sibling permission-checking tools (get_exam_permission, get_class_permission, etc.), and the description does not explain when to use this one (e.g., only for quizzes, not for exams). Since the sibling names are distinct and the description mentions 'quiz', usage is implied but not stated.

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