List Quiz Attempts

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so description's 'Read-only' reinforces that. It adds behavioral detail by specifying return content (status, dates, marks, grade, review URL/attempt id). This goes beyond annotations, though it could mention side effects (none) or what happens with no attempts.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action and output. No extraneous information. Efficient for an API tool description.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter usage, return format, and edge case handling. Adequate only for very minimal tool understanding.

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% and description does not explain any parameter. Required 'cmid' is not described; optional parameters (cookies, base_url, session_id) are omitted. Description adds no semantic value beyond parameter names.

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 reads a quiz activity page and returns student attempt summaries with status, dates, marks, grade, and review URL/attempt id. The verb 'reads' and resource 'quiz activity page' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'virtuale_quiz_get_attempt_review' and 'virtuale_quiz_list_course_quizzes' by focusing on listing attempts.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for listing attempts for a specific quiz, but it does not mention exclusions or direct comparisons to siblings like 'virtuale_quiz_get_attempt_review' for individual review details.

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