Get quiz

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior by disclosing the return payload, including user-scoped data ('your latest attempt', 'attempts left', 'kept score'), which is valuable given there is no output schema. It omits any mention of error behavior for missing or New-Quiz ids and says nothing about auth or permissions.

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 compact sentences with zero filler: the first front-loads the resource and its contents, the second handles the sibling routing. Every clause carries information an agent needs, and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting well by enumerating the returned fields and flagging the classic-vs-New-Quizzes split. What remains missing is parameter-level detail (id format/origin) and any statement about failure modes when the quiz is not a classic quiz or the user has no attempts.

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% for the two required parameters (course_id, quiz_id), so the description carries the full burden and largely does not meet it. The only semantic hint is that quiz_id refers to a classic quiz, inferred from the New Quizzes routing sentence. Neither parameter's format, source, or relationship is explained.

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?

Names the specific resource ('One classic quiz') and enumerates exactly what the response contains (instructions, time limit, attempts, lock window, settings, latest attempt details), which makes the operation unambiguous. It also explicitly distinguishes classic quizzes from New Quizzes and points to canvas_get_assignment for the latter. It loses a point only because it never states the retrieval verb or that it fetches by quiz_id, leaving the action implied rather than declared.

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?

Gives an explicit when-not rule: for New Quizzes, use canvas_get_assignment with the assignment id. That is a real routing decision an agent would otherwise get wrong. It does not, however, clarify when to call this versus canvas_list_quizzes or what happens if the quiz id belongs to a New Quiz, so it stops short of full alternative coverage.

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