Get Quiz

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no new behavioral traits (e.g., error conditions, permission requirements). It is consistent with annotations but doesn't go beyond them.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence containing only essential information. No wasted words; the action and resource are immediately identifiable.

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 is simple and has no output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return details. It adequately conveys the operation for an agent. However, it doesn't enumerate what 'details' include, which could be slightly vague in a complex Canvas context, but that's minor.

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 100% – both course_id and quiz_id are already documented with clear descriptions. The phrase 'by ID' adds little beyond the schema's existing field documentation, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('details for a single quiz'), and an identifier ('by ID'). It distinguishes from sibling list_quizzes by emphasizing 'single' and 'by ID', leaving no ambiguity about scope.

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 clearly implies the use case: when you need details for one specific quiz by ID. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., list_quizzes for multiple quizzes). This is clear context without exclusions.

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