BetaSeries: quiz

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'connected user' for some operations but does not explain authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or potential side effects of POST operations. The GET vs POST methods are shown, but the consequences and prerequisites are only minimally implied.

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 appropriately structured as a bullet list of operations, each with a concise summary and parameter breakdown. It is longer due to the number of operations, but every line adds value and the general instruction is front-loaded. No filler or redundant content exists.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers operation purposes and parameters well. However, it omits return value structures, authentication details beyond 'connected user', and error behaviors. Given the complexity of seven sub-operations, this is a notable gap, though the description is still sufficient for basic invocation.

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 schema only defines a generic 'params' object without enumerating operation-specific keys. The description compensates thoroughly by listing each operation's parameters, including optionality markers, defaults, and examples (e.g., 'answers? (Answers data of the user, JSON array like : [{question: 1, answer: 3, time: 1230}] (time is in ms))'). This adds crucial semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 calls the BetaSeries 'quiz' API and lists specific operations like 'get-quiz-history' and 'post-quiz-answer'. This unambiguously identifies the tool's purpose and differentiates it from sibling tools that target other API resources such as polls or statistics.

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 instructs the user to 'Pick an operation and pass its parameters' and provides a list of available operations with their endpoints and purposes. It clearly implies when to use this tool (for quiz-related queries and answer submission) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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