moodle_list_quizzes

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but nothing is said about authentication/session requirements, whether hidden or unpublished quizzes are included, or whether results are paginated or filtered by role. For a zero-annotation tool this leaves meaningful behavioral questions unanswered.

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?

One sentence plus a compact Args block, with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The Args line largely restates the schema, which is mild redundancy but not bloat for a one-parameter tool.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate to invoke it but not to predict its behavior. It says nothing about what a listed quiz entry contains or how visibility is scoped, which is the remaining gap an agent would care about.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does: 'courseid: Moodle course id' clarifies that the integer identifies a Moodle course rather than a section, category, or quiz, but adds no format, source, or lookup guidance. This is the minimum useful clarification for a single undocumented parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List the quizzes/tests of a course.' An agent can immediately tell this is a collection-listing tool, distinct in kind from single-item siblings like moodle_get_quiz. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or the boundary between them, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of preferring this over moodle_get_quiz, no prerequisite that the course be enrolled/accessible, and no statement of whether it works for students, teachers, or both. The only context is the one required argument.

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