List Student Quiz Accommodations

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorld annotations by disclosing that there is no Canvas read endpoint, that the tool performs one read per Classic Quiz (performance implication), and that errors from any quiz's read propagate immediately. This materially changes how an agent should plan calls.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: it covers purpose, usage context, scope limitation, performance caveat, error behavior, and input requirements. All key information is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description tells the agent what data is read (extra_time / extra_attempts), the performance characteristics, the error propagation behavior, the scope restriction, and the prerequisite for pseudonymized students. It fully equips an agent to decide and invoke 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes both parameters. The description adds important value by clarifying that user_id must be the real Canvas ID (not a pseudonym) and conditions under which resolve_pseudonym should be called first. That goes beyond the schema's basic type/description.

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 resource ('student quiz accommodations'), and clearly scopes to a particular student, all Classic Quizzes in a course. It explicitly distinguishes itself from New Quizzes and the write counterpart set_student_quiz_accommodation, so it is easy to tell apart from siblings.

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?

States that the tool is useful for auditing before/after calling set_student_quiz_accommodationraded, and explicitly notes it covers only Classic Quizzes, which rules out the New Quizzes sibling. It also gives a precondition when pseudonyms are enabled (resolve real user ID). It does not explicitly name the alternative sibling for New Quizzes, but the exclusion is clear.

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