Get Quiz Extensions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' restates structured data. The one genuine addition is 'Returns an empty list if none were granted,' which sets expectations for the no-data case -- useful but thin for an openWorld read.

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 the purpose front-loaded, followed by the read-only guarantee and the empty-result behavior. No wasted text and no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description should hint at what the extension records contain (e.g., extra minutes, extra attempts, extension type), but it only states that an empty list is possible. Combined with rich annotations and full schema coverage, this is adequate but leaves a real gap about return contents.

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 (course_id, quiz_id) document their format and where to obtain them, so the schema carries the load. The description mentions neither parameter, adding nothing beyond the schema -- baseline 3 applies.

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: what extra time or extra attempts are granted to the caller on a quiz, labeled '(accommodations)'. The phrase 'granted to you' usefully separates it from sibling tools like get_quiz_assignment_overrides, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The agent must infer that this is checked before attempting a quiz; nothing tells it what to do instead if the list is empty or how this differs from quiz assignment overrides.

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