List Quiz Submissions

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

readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true are already provided in annotations, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It adds minimal extra context beyond the name, only confirming it lists all submissions. No mention of pagination or return format, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's 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 simple list tool with only two parameters and read-only annotations, the description is sufficient to convey the core function. It doesn't explain return structure, but no output schema exists and the name implies a list of submissions. Minor gaps like pagination are not disclosed, but overall adequacy is high.

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% with both parameters described as 'The Canvas quiz ID' and 'The Canvas course ID'. The description text adds no additional parameter meaning, 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('submissions for a quiz'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_submissions (which likely handles assignment submissions) and other quiz-related tools by specifying 'for a 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 phrase 'for a quiz' implies when to use this tool, but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. There is no guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tools to prefer in other contexts.

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