s21_generate_practice_quiz

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects, and it does: it states questions are saved to SQLite and that the exam simulator must be invoked with start_exam: true. It stops short of specifying the tool's return value or how duplicate/overwrite behavior is handled, but the core write and orchestration behavior is explicit.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose and then provides a dense but compact workflow directive. There is a minor redundancy between 'multiple choice and theoretical justifications' and 'distractors and academic explanations,' but the overall length is appropriate for a tool with orchestration behavior.

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 side-effectful generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the trigger, content, source material, persistence step, and downstream simulator launch. The main omissions are the tool's return shape and what happens if the question bank already contains questions for the same course/reading.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds marginal context by relating course_id to the downstream simulator call and the reading to the official Canvas reading, but it does not explain parameter syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond the schema.

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 states a precise action (generates a practice/mock exam), the content format (multiple choice with distractors and theoretical explanations), and the input source (the official Canvas reading). It clearly differentiates this from siblings like s21_get_bank_questions or s21_open_exam_simulator by presenting generation as the first step of a workflow.

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 DIRECTIVA DE FLUJO gives an explicit trigger condition: when the user asks to prepare, take, or train for an interactive exam, generate questions, save them, and launch the simulator. It does not explicitly list when not to use the tool, such as when the user only wants to retrieve existing bank questions, so it misses the exclusion part of a perfect usage guideline.

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