list_student_quiz_accommodations

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds significant behavioral context: it reads from each Classic Quiz's submission records (one API call per quiz), warns of slowness, states error propagation is immediate without per-quiz catching, and explains the underlying API limitation. 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 a single, dense paragraph that efficiently conveys the core purpose, usage notes, and caveats. It front-loads the action and then provides necessary details. While concise, it could benefit from slight restructuring for readability, but it earns its place.

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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description explains what is read (extra_time, extra_attempts) and the data source. It covers performance, error behavior, and prerequisite steps. Missing exact return format, but the purpose and behavior are well-explained.

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 descriptions for both required parameters. The description adds extra value by specifying that user_id must be the real Canvas user ID and advising to resolve pseudonyms first. This goes beyond the schema definition.

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 lists quiz accommodations (extra time/attempts) for a student across Classic Quizzes in a course, and distinguishes from New Quizzes by explicitly excluding them. It also references sibling tools like set_student_quiz_accommodation and list_student_new_quiz_accommodations, providing strong purpose clarity.

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 notes usefulness for auditing before/after set_student_quiz_accommodation, warns about slowness for many quizzes, and specifies a prerequisite (resolve_pseudonym if pseudonymization enabled). It does not explicitly list alternatives but implies New Quizzes should use the sibling tool. Overall, clear context and some exclusion guidance.

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