moodle_quiz_attempt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the key trait that this is a pure read with no creation or submission, which is the main risk area. It leaves unaddressed whether reading a page has any side effect on attempt state, whether it works after submission, or what happens on an invalid attemptid/page.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, followed by a disambiguation clause and a compact Args block. Every sentence contributes; nothing is repeated from the schema titles.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, return shape by reference to a sibling, and both parameters. The remaining gap is error/lifecycle behavior (submitted or expired attempts, invalid page), which an agent would likely need to handle.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning, and it delivers: attemptid is tied to its origin (from moodle_quiz_start or the attempt URL) and page is defined as zero-based with a default of 0. It adds real provenance context, though it does not bound valid page ranges or state what an out-of-range page returns.

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 — read one page of an in-progress quiz attempt — and immediately scopes it against a sibling by saying it returns the same structure as moodle_quiz_start 'without creating or submitting anything.' An agent can distinguish it from start/submit without opening any schema.

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 phrase 'in-progress quiz attempt' plus 'without creating or submitting anything' clearly implies this is for paging through an attempt already created via moodle_quiz_start, and that start/submit are the tools for the other phases. No explicit when-not or named alternative is spelled out, so it stops just short of a 5.

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