List Course Quizzes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows it is read-only and results may vary. The description adds that it returns the cmid, but does not elaborate on other behavioral traits like pagination or authentication details. With annotations covering safety, the description provides adequate but not exceptional transparency.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core function ('Lists quiz activities') and immediately states the key output detail (cmid). No extraneous information, earning high marks for conciseness.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description clarifies that the output includes quiz activities with cmid, which is essential for subsequent tool usage. However, it does not mention any limitations (e.g., pagination) or the structure of the returned data. Overall, it is mostly complete for a list tool but leaves minor gaps.

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 has 4 parameters (cookies, base_url, course_id, session_id) with 0% schema description coverage. The description only implicitly references course_id via 'course page'. It fails to explain the roles of cookies, base_url, and session_id, or provide any additional meaning beyond the schema. This is a significant gap for a tool requiring authentication context.

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 lists quiz activities on a course page and specifies that it returns the course-module id (cmid) needed by other quiz tools. This differentiates it from siblings like virtuale_quiz_list_attempts or virtuale_quiz_get_attempt_review, which focus on attempts and reviews.

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 implies the primary use case: to obtain the cmid for subsequent quiz-related tool calls. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, the context of sibling tools and the mention of 'needed by the other quiz tools' provides clear guidance on when to invoke this tool.

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