List Student New Quiz Accommodations

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 treatment of 404 as 'no record' (returning has_accommodation: false), the single course-level record nature, and the pseudonym caveat. This goes beyond what annotations convey, though it could also comment on response structure beyond the single field.

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 multi-sentence but each sentence carries distinct, necessary information (purpose, error behavior, scope, alternative tool, parameter caveat). It is well-structured, with the core purpose first, followed by operational details. Slightly longer than minimal but no 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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains the key return behavior (has_accommodation flag) and the 404 handling. It also clarifies the course-level scope, which is critical for correct interpretation. It could have also mentioned any potential pagination or rate limits, but these are minor gaps.

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 already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (real Canvas user ID, course ID). The description enhances this by specifying that user_id must be the real (non-pseudonymized) ID and advising to call resolve_pseudonym first if needed. This adds meaning beyond the schema's basic labels.

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 it reads New Quizzes accommodations for a specific student, with specific fields (time multiplier, extra attempts). It distinguishes from the Classic Quiz variant by explicitly naming the alternative, and from the setter tool. The scope is precise and immediately comprehensible.

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 guidance on when to use: for auditing before/after set_student_new_quiz_accommodation, and explicitly points to list_student_quiz_accommodations for Classic Quizzes. Also mentions the prerequisite of resolving pseudonyms if needed, which clarifies when additional steps are required.

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