get_quiz_best_grade

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as what happens if the user has no attempts, whether it returns a number or an object, or whether it respects any availability conditions. It does not contradict the annotations, but it fails to enrich beyond them.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded. However, it is so terse that it omits important context, but that is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness one. As a pure structural element, it is appropriately brief and readable.

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 simple read-only tool, the description lacks essential details: it does not specify the return format (e.g., a number, percentage, letter grade), what happens if the user has no attempts, or how quiz_id relates to course resources. With no output schema and only one parameter, the agent cannot reliably predict the tool's output or handle edge cases. The annotations cover safety but not functional completeness.

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?

The input schema has one parameter (quiz_id) with no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain quiz_id beyond implying it refers to a quiz; it does not state that it is the Moodle quiz instance ID, how to obtain it, or any validation rules. Since the description is the sole source of parameter meaning, this is critically deficient.

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 clearly states the action ('Consulta' – consult) and the resource ('la mejor calificación propia ... para un cuestionario' – the user's best grade for a quiz). This distinguishes it from quiz attempt review/summary tools, which focus on attempts rather than a single aggregated grade. However, it could be more explicit about the exact semantics (e.g., highest across all attempts) and does not contrast with sibling tools, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, such as needing a quiz ID from list_quizzes, or exclusions like not using it when you need attempt-level details. The agent is left to infer the use case from the purpose alone, which is minimal.

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