Get Quiz Question Responses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable context: the 'needs_manual_grading' field for certain question types, the per-submission API call behavior with partial failure handling (submissions_failed), and pseudonymization under a config flag. These details go beyond the annotations, enhancing the agent's understanding of output and edge cases. No contradictions with annotations.

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 about 160 words, which is longer than the terse example but every sentence adds meaningful information. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then details usage constraints and behavioral nuances. It could be slightly trimmed, but overall it is efficient and well-structured.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing key output fields (needs_manual_grading, points_possible), error handling, and environmental behavior (pseudonymization). Combined with the rich annotations and schema, it provides a complete picture for safe invocation and interpretation.

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%, and the schema already explains question_id's optional nature and filtering behavior. The description reiterates this but adds no new semantic details beyond what the schema provides. Thus, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: to review student answers to quiz questions, pivoted by question, for Classic Quizzes. It explicitly differentiates from alternatives like SpeedGrader and mentions the specific quiz types it supports, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: for grading essay/short-answer/file-upload questions across a class, and when-not-to-use: New Quizzes (different API). It also clarifies the optional question_id parameter's role in scoping, which guides correct invocation.

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