list_quiz_submissions

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 with potentially dynamic results. The description adds no behavioral details beyond 'List', such as pagination, ordering, or scope limitations (e.g., if it returns only graded submissions). This is minimal value added.

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 extremely concise: a single 5-word sentence with no redundant information. Every word is necessary and it front-loads the purpose.

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 no output schema and two required parameters, the description lacks details about return format, behavior when no submissions exist, or any limits. While annotations cover safety, the description does not fully equip an agent to understand the tool's behavior without additional context.

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 both parameters described as 'The Canvas course ID' and 'The Canvas quiz ID'. The description does not add extra meaning beyond these schema descriptions. Baseline 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 action (List) and the resource (submissions) and adds specificity with 'for a quiz'. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_submissions' which likely targets assignments. However, it does not mention the required parameters explicitly, but they are in the schema.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_submissions' or 'get_submission'. No context about prerequisites, filters, or when not to use. The sibling list is extensive, making lack of differentiation a gap.

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