get_quiz_qcm_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully covers behavioral traits. It discloses that the tool reuses the latest unfinished attempt, returns a flag if none exists, and that start_if_needed creates a new attempt only when needed. It also mentions optional preflight_data. It does not explicitly state if starting an attempt modifies state, but the conditions are well described.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses bullet points for parameters. Every sentence provides necessary information without fluff.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers behavior, parameter semantics, and edge cases. It references list_quizzes for finding quiz_id. Missing explicit return format details, but overall complete for retrieval 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%, so the description provides all parameter meaning. It explains quiz_id references list_quizzes, start_if_needed creates a new attempt only when needed, and preflight_data is optional for preflight data like passwords. This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 returns rendered QCM/quiz questions from the current attempt, specifying the verb 'return' and the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on the current unfinished attempt.

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 explains that the tool reuses the latest unfinished attempt and provides behavior when none exists, including the requires_attempt_creation flag and the start_if_needed parameter. It lacks direct comparison with sibling tools but gives clear usage context.

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