list_quiz_attempts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (JSON array with state, score, timestamps) and the user_id filter behavior ('0 = current user only'). While it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, the verb 'List' strongly implies non-mutating behavior, and no hidden side effects are indicated.

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 brief and well-structured with an opening sentence and an Args/Returns format. Every line serves a purpose, with no filler or redundant information.

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 two-parameter tool with a stated return array, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameters, and output. It could benefit from noting potential permissions or pagination, but given the low complexity and the presence of an output schema, 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains quiz_id as 'the quiz instance ID' and user_id with the meaningful detail that 0 means current user, adding valuable semantics beyond the bare schema property 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 'List attempts for a quiz' with a specific verb and resource, and the addendum '(parcial/examen)' provides useful context. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_assignment_submissions and get_grades_report, which target different entities.

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 for listing quiz attempts but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention exclusions. The parameter and return details make the intended use inferable, but there is no direct guidance on choosing this tool over similar siblings.

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