get_quiz

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true) already indicate a safe, read-only operation with possibly varying results. The description adds 'details' but does not elaborate on return structure or behavior beyond annotations. It adds minimal value beyond structured data.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the critical info: verb, resource, and method. No wasted words or redundant information.

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?

Despite low complexity and full schema coverage, the lack of an output schema and no description of return data leaves some gaps. The description could hint at what fields or structure the details include. However, for a simple get-by-ID tool, it is minimally adequate.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (course_id, quiz_id). The description does not add any additional semantic meaning; it only restates retrieval by ID, which is already obvious from the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the action ('Get details'), the resource ('a single quiz'), and the method ('by ID'). It distinguishes effectively from sibling tools like list_quizzes, create_new_quiz, and update_quiz.

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 implies usage context: use this when you need details of a specific quiz by ID. While it lacks explicit when-not or alternative mentions, the context signals and sibling tools (e.g., list_quizzes for multiple) make the usage fairly clear.

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