canvas_quiz_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns specific data fields (titles, descriptions, due dates, etc.), which adds useful behavioral context beyond a basic 'list' operation. However, it does not mention potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions, leaving gaps for a mutation-free read operation.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, a bulleted list of returns, and a 'Use this to:' section—all in three concise parts. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, and it is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, returns, and usage guidelines. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like pagination or error handling, which would be beneficial for a list operation. The absence of an output schema means the description must fully explain returns, which it does adequately but not exhaustively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage (course_id is well-described), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but it implicitly reinforces the need for a course_id by stating 'in a course'. This slight contextual addition justifies a score above baseline, though not a 5 since no new parameter semantics are introduced.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'all quizzes in a course', making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like canvas_quiz_get (which retrieves a single quiz) by emphasizing listing multiple items. The title is null, so the description fully carries the purpose definition.

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 'Use this to:' section provides clear context for when to use this tool: to see upcoming quizzes, find quiz IDs for details, and check quiz settings. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., canvas_quiz_get for detailed info on a specific quiz), which prevents a perfect score.

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