canvas_quiz_submission

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return values (e.g., attempt number, score), which is helpful, but lacks critical details such as authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately concise and well-structured. It starts with the core purpose, lists return values in a bulleted format for clarity, and ends with a usage tip. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and return values but lacks behavioral context (e.g., auth needs, errors) and doesn't differentiate from siblings. Without an output schema, the description helpfully lists return values, but overall it leaves gaps that could hinder effective tool use.

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, with clear documentation for 'course_id' and 'quiz_id'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema already does the heavy lifting without needing extra details in the description.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get your submission/attempt for a quiz.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('submission/attempt for a quiz'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'canvas_get_my_submission' or 'canvas_quiz_get', which could cause confusion about when to use this specific tool versus others.

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 provides minimal guidance: 'Use to check your quiz results.' This implies a context but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'canvas_get_my_submission' or 'canvas_quiz_get'. No exclusions, prerequisites, or clear alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent with little direction on tool selection.

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