Get New Quiz Items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the description is not carrying the safety burden. It does add genuinely non-obvious context the annotations cannot express: that most schools restrict this to instructors and students will typically get a permission error, which pre-empts a confusing failure mode.

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 with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the read-only and permission notes. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 two-param read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, safety, and the key access caveat. It stops short of noting pagination or what question fields come back, which would help an agent plan the call.

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% and both parameters are fully documented in-schema, including where to obtain each ID. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 questions in a New Quizzes assessment') and the 'New Quizzes' qualifier implicitly separates it from the classic-quiz sibling list_quiz_questions. It does not name that sibling outright, so the differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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 'New Quizzes' scoping and the instructor-only permission note imply when this tool applies, but there is no explicit 'use list_quiz_questions for classic quizzes instead' routing. The agent must infer the alternative from the name of a sibling it has to already know.

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