edubase_get_quiz_report

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world profile, so the description's job is additive — and it delivers the permission prerequisite (reporting permission for the Quiz set) plus the important edge case that the list is empty when no qualifying results exist. What's missing is anything about pagination or the shape of the returned list, though an output schema exists to cover that.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the scope constraint and the permission requirement — no wasted clauses. The lead sentence duplicates the annotation title almost verbatim, which is mild redundancy but not harmful.

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 single-parameter listing tool with a rich annotation set and an output schema, the description covers purpose, dependency on the sibling download tool, permission prerequisite, and the empty-result case. It never explains what a "report" entry contains, but the output schema is present to carry that.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage as a "Quiz set identification string". The description restates that the quiz identifies a Quiz set but adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance, so it does nothing meaningful beyond the schema.

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 and resource ("List the reports of a Quiz set") and immediately routes the agent to the sibling that consumes those reports (edubase_post_quiz_report). The added qualifier that only non-exam results are reported further narrows the scope so it can be told apart from exam-report siblings.

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?

Gives clear selection context: this is the listing step that pairs with edubase_post_quiz_report, and the note that only results outside exams appear implies exam reporting goes elsewhere. It stops short of naming the alternative tool (e.g. edubase_get_exam_report) explicitly for the exam case.

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