list_quizzes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the non-mutating behavior. The description adds that it lists dates, limits, and configuration, which is some context about the return content but not a behavioral trait beyond what annotations provide. It does not contradict annotations, and adds marginal context, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 redundant wording. It front-loads the main purpose and adds a key exclusion. There is no filler, but it could be slightly more detailed without losing conciseness, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

With only 1 optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It does not explain how course_ids filters results, what 'visible' means, or what the output structure looks like. While annotations cover safety, the description is not fully complete for an agent to confidently call it without ambiguity, so 3.

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 schema has 1 parameter (course_ids) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention course_ids at all. The parameter is optional and named clearly, but the description provides no guidance on its meaning (e.g., filtering by course, or behavior when null). This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, so a 2 is given.

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 states a specific verb ('Lista' = lists) and resource (quizzes), and specifies what is listed (dates, limits, configuration). It also explicitly notes it does not start attempts, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_quiz or preview_start_quiz. This meets the 5-level criterion of a specific verb+resource with sibling differentiation.

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 implies usage by stating it lists quizzes and does not start attempts, but it does not explicitly provide when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name specific sibling tools. The distinction is implicit, so this falls short of clear context or explicit exclusions, rating a 3 for implied usage only.

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