list_quiz_attempts

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

The description states 'sin modificar su estado' (without modifying its state), which aligns with the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It adds the 'own attempts' scoping, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, or whether preview attempts are included by default. Given the annotations already cover read-only behavior, the description adds moderate value.

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 in Spanish, which is efficient and front-loaded with the action ('Lista') and resource. However, it lacks detail that could make it more informative without being verbose. It is appropriately compact, but given the parameter gap, more explicit guidance might be warranted without becoming overly long.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, 1 required, and no output schema. The description only covers the high-level purpose without addressing how to use parameters, what the return value looks like, or any constraints. For a list tool, an agent would need to know about pagination, filtering, and what fields are returned. The description is incomplete and forces reliance on the schema, which is also sparse (0% coverage).

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%, and the description provides no information about the parameters. It does not explain that quiz_id is required, what valid values 'status' accepts (e.g., 'all', 'finished', 'inprogress'), or the meaning of include_previews. The agent must infer parameter semantics entirely from the schema, which has no descriptions. This is a critical gap because the tool has 4 parameters including a required one.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lista' – lists) and a clear resource ('los intentos propios de un cuestionario' – own attempts of a quiz). It distinguishes itself by specifying 'propios' (own), which differentiates from other attempt-related tools like get_quiz_attempt_review that may inspect other users' attempts. However, it does not mention what information the list contains (e.g., attempt IDs, scores, timestamps), leaving slight ambiguity.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_quiz_attempt_summary or inspect_quiz_attempt. It does not specify when 'status' filter is useful, when include_previews matters, or how it relates to other attempt tools. There is no mention of exclusions or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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