preview_finish_quiz

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'nunca lo envía' primarily reinforces that. It adds the concept of 'irreversible finalization' as a warning about what the real operation does, but doesn't describe what the preview returns or any side-effect nuances. With annotations covering safety, this is a moderate addition, earning a 3.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the core purpose and safety guarantee. It is efficient with no fluff, though it could benefit from a bit more detail without becoming verbose. The structure is good for brevity but slightly under-informative.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is far from complete. It fails to explain what the preview shows, what the parameters do, or how to interpret the result. The safety aspect is covered, but operational details are entirely missing, making it inadequate for correct usage.

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 zero explanation of any parameter (attempt_id, time_up, responses, preflight_data). An agent cannot infer what 'responses' or 'preflight_data' mean from the schema alone, and the description offers no help. This is a critical gap for a 4-parameter tool.

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 action ('previsualiza' = preview) and resource ('la finalización irreversible de un intento' = irreversible finalization of an attempt), and explicitly contrasts with the actual submission ('nunca lo envía'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tool 'finish_quiz', so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting the schema.

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 phrase 'nunca lo envía' provides direct guidance: use this to preview the finalization safely, not to actually submit. While it doesn't explicitly name the alternative 'finish_quiz', the semantic contrast is clear and the sibling list includes it, giving strong contextual cueing. It gives a clear when-to-use signal without naming fallback tools explicitly.

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