inspect_quiz_attempt

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description mentions 'Moodle puede procesar el vencimiento y cambiar el intento' (Moodle may process expiration and change the attempt). This hints at mutation, but it is vague and does not explain what exactly is destroyed or changed. The phrase 'Abre la vista confirmada' sounds read-only, creating ambiguity about the side effects. With annotations already flagging destructiveness, the description adds little clarity and could mislead.

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 but not effective. It lacks structure and does not front-load key information; the ambiguity outweighs the brevity. A good description here would be longer to cover the necessary details.

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?

Given that this tool has no output schema, complex behavior (destructive), and five parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, side effects, or how to use the parameters. The agent cannot safely invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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%, so the description must explain the parameters. It fails to mention any of the five parameters (page, summary, attempt_id, preflight_data, confirmation_token) or their purpose. The agent has no help understanding what confirmation_token is for or how to supply it, making correct invocation nearly impossible.

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 'Abre la vista confirmada' is vague; it does not clearly state that this tool inspects a quiz attempt. The name suggests the purpose, but the description does not explicitly say 'inspect' or 'attempt'. It also does not distinguish from sibling tools like get_quiz_attempt_page or preview_inspect_quiz_attempt, leaving the agent to guess what this specific tool does.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools for quiz attempts (e.g., get_quiz_attempt_page, get_quiz_attempt_summary, preview_inspect_quiz_attempt). No context is given about prerequisites, scenarios, or alternatives. The agent is left without any direction on selecting this tool.

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