Score Quiz Question

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

The description mentions the requirement of grading permissions, which is a behavioral prerequisite. It does not disclose any additional side effects beyond what the annotations (destructiveHint) already indicate, and it does not state whether the operation overwrites existing scores or how comments are handled. Thus, it adds minimal transparency beyond 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 concise, consisting of two short sentences that directly convey essential information without redundancy or fluff. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 description covers the core purpose, the optional attempt parameter, and permission requirements. It does not mention return values or error conditions, but given the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool, it is sufficiently complete for a typical user. It could optionally mention whether the comment parameter is supported, but that is not required for basic usage.

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?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions for all parameters. The description repeats the attempt parameter guidance that is already present in the schema. It does not add any new semantic meaning or operational context for parameters, such as valid ranges or relationships between them.

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's function: scoring a specific question in a quiz submission. It distinguishes itself from whole-submission grading by specifying 'specific question', which is precise and unambiguous.

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 usage details for the optional 'attempt' parameter ('Specify attempt to score a particular attempt (omit for latest)') and mentions the required permission. However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like 'grade_submission', leaving the exact context of when to use this tool versus alternatives implied rather than stated.

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