Record a learner's answer and return an attempt ID for evidence-based assessment, enabling progress tracking and mastery estimation in tutoring sessions.
Record a learner attempt and return its attempt_id for assessment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| answer | Yes | ||
| item_id | No | ||
| node_id | No | ||
| hint_level | No | ||
| request_id | No | ||
| session_id | Yes | ||
| response_time | No | ||
| predicted_performance | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions returning an attempt_id, but does not reveal side effects (e.g., does it modify session state?), prerequisites, failure behavior, or impact on assessment flows. This is minimal for a recording/mutation 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 concise sentence with no fluff, which is positive for conciseness. However, it is under-specified to the point of failing to inform the agent about critical usage details, so conciseness is not an advantage here. It earns a middle score.
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 eight parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It omits parameter meanings, return format details, side effects, and usage context. An agent cannot safely invoke this tool correctly based on this definition alone.
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 must compensate by explaining the eight parameters, but it explains none. It does not clarify what answer, item_id, node_id, hint_level, request_id, response_time, or predicted_performance mean or how they affect recording. The single verb 'record' does not disambiguate any parameter.
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 'Record' and the resource 'a learner attempt', and explicitly mentions returning an attempt_id for assessment. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not differentiate from sibling tools like submit_diagnostic or submit_review.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the many submission-related siblings (submit_diagnostic, submit_review, submit_diagnostic_result), the description offers no context for when an 'attempt' is the appropriate choice, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.