get_quiz_attempt_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds a warning about a possible timeout ('Moodle puede procesar un timeout') and says the tool is 'locked/blocked', which is behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose what happens on success or failure, what the output looks like, or any side effects (though readOnly implies none). The added context is minimal and vague, so above 1 but still weak.

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 extremely short (one sentence), which could be concise, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks any structural elements like a purpose statement or parameter overview. The single sentence is a directive to use another flow, not a description of this tool. It does not front-load useful information; it front-loads a warning that the tool is blocked.

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?

There is no output schema, and the tool appears to return a summary of a quiz attempt, which is non-trivial. The description provides no information about return values, error conditions, or how this relates to sibling tools like get_quiz_attempt_review or inspect_quiz_attempt. For an agent to decide to call this tool, it would need to know what 'summary' means and what the difference is from 'review' or 'page'. The description is completely inadequate for effective selection.

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 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for attempt_id or preflight_data. The description does not mention either parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the raw schema. With two parameters and zero explanation, this is a critical gap that the description entirely fails to address.

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 is in Spanish and reads 'Blocked: Moodle may process a timeout; use the confirmed inspect flow.' It does not state what the tool does, what resource it operates on, or any verb indicating functionality. It is a warning/disclaimer rather than a description of purpose, making it impossible for an agent to know what this tool is supposed to do.

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 includes an explicit instruction to use the 'inspect confirmed' flow instead, implying this tool should not be used. However, it gives no positive usage context—no conditions under which this tool is appropriate, no prerequisites, and no comparison to sibling tools like get_quiz_attempt_review or inspect_quiz_attempt beyond a vague alternative. It provides some guidance (do not use) but lacks a real usage scenario.

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