get_quiz_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned data scope (interaction_data, scoring_data, feedback) and implies a read-only operation via 'Get'. However, it does not mention potential error conditions, prerequisites, or permissions, which are gaps for a read tool.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, and includes specific data fields without extra wording.

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 simple read tool with only 3 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the purpose and return scope. It does not explain what interaction_data or scoring_data contain, but given its simplicity, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameter descriptions already fully document item_id, course_id, and assignment_id. The tool description adds context about return data but does not enhance understanding of parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, matching the high-coverage baseline.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'full details of a single quiz item', and explicitly lists included data fields (interaction_data, scoring_data, feedback). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_quiz_items (listing) and create/update/delete_quiz_item (mutations).

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 usage context ('full details' vs listing) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks clear comparison with list_quiz_items or get_new_quiz, so usage guidance is only implied.

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