preview_inspect_quiz_attempt

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

Annotations already signal read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a tool-specific behavioral guarantee beyond the annotations: the quiz attempt timer is not processed, which is meaningful context for a quiz-related tool.

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 sentence with no filler; the most important scoping fact is front-loaded. It is efficient and easy to parse, though it is too short to cover the remaining operational 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?

There is no output schema, no parameter documentation in the description, and no explanation of return values or optional parameter usage. The description says what the tool avoids but not what it returns or how preflight_data should be populated.

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 does not explain any of the four parameters. Names like attempt_id are somewhat inferable, but page, summary, and especially preflight_data remain ambiguous without any explanation.

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 names a specific verb ('previsualizar') and resource ('un intento'), and the added contrast 'no lo abre ni procesa su temporizador' makes it clear this is a preview action rather than a real open. It does not explicitly distinguish it from closely related siblings such as inspect_quiz_attempt or preview_start_quiz.

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 preview framing and the explicit statement that it does not open or process the timer imply it is meant as a dry-run check before acting. However, no sibling tool is named and no explicit condition such as 'use this instead of X when...' is provided.

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