Get Quiz Attempt Review

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that the tool reads review data without modifying state, and details what data is returned, enhancing 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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose and contents, second states limitations. Front-loaded with key information, no wasted words.

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?

No output schema, but description sufficiently explains what is returned (each question's text, answer options, selection, correctness, feedback). Constraints are clear. Could be improved by briefly explaining the required parameters.

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 has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only implicitly references attempt_id and does not explain cmid, cookies, base_url, or session_id. It provides no added meaning for individual parameters.

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 it 'Reads the review page of one of the student's own finished quiz attempts' and lists exact contents (questions, answers, correctness, feedback). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it does not start, resume, or answer a live attempt.

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 explicitly states when it works: 'Only works for attempts Moodle already allows the student to review (finished, review permitted by the quiz settings)'. It also clarifies it does not handle live attempts, but does not explicitly name alternative tools for live attempts.

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