get_quiz_attempt_page

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

The description contradicts the readOnlyHint annotation by stating 'Moodle may change the attempt when reading,' implying a side effect despite the read-only claim. This is a direct annotation contradiction. It also fails to disclose any other behavioral aspects, such as return format or required authentication context, leaving the tool's behavior opaque.

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 short sentence, which is concise in length. However, it prioritizes a warning over functional details, making it more of a placeholder than a well-structured tool description. It is not bloated, but it is incomplete and lacks the front-loaded purpose that effective descriptions should have.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no schema coverage, the description must provide substantial context. Instead, it offers only a dead-end warning and a redirect. The agent has no idea what the tool actually does, how to call it, or what to expect in return, making the description completely inadequate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining the three parameters (attempt_id, page, preflight_data), but it provides no information about them. There is no mention of what each parameter means, expected formats, or how they interact. The agent cannot infer parameter usage from the description.

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 does not state what the tool does. It only says 'Blocked: Moodle may change the attempt when reading; use the confirmed inspect flow.' This is a warning and redirect, not a definition of purpose. The name hints at retrieving a quiz attempt page, but the description fails to clarify the tool's function and even implies it is unusable.

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 explicitly tells the agent to avoid this tool and use the 'confirmed inspect flow' instead, providing a clear alternative. While it does not describe conditions under which this tool might still be used, the strong negative guidance is unambiguous and helpful for routing the agent away from a problematic operation.

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