Get Quiz Submission Events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: event types, chronological ordering, single-submission scoping, access permissions, and the integrity caveat. There is no contradiction 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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds distinct value: event types, use case, Classic-only limitation, permissions, and a usage caveat. No filler or redundancy.

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 lacking an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (chronological event log with named event types), its scope, permissions, and limitations. Given the moderate complexity and strong annotations, this is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 each parameter already has a meaningful description. The tool description does not add significant parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('event log for a Classic Quiz submission'), lists concrete event types, and clarifies chronological ordering. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_quiz_submission_answers and list_quiz_submissions by focusing on the event timeline rather than answers or submission lists.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use this to understand the timeline of a student's attempt'), when not to use it ('Classic Quizzes only — New Quizzes does not expose event logs via the Canvas REST API'), and provides a strong caution against using event logs as the sole basis for academic-integrity conclusions. This is clear usage guidance with exclusions.

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