get_quiz_questions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and discloses the return shape (question id, name, type, slot number), which is meaningful behavioral context. It doesn't cover error cases or pagination, but for a simple list operation this is adequate.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler. Every word adds value: it names the resource, the identification mechanism, the read-only nature, and the return fields.

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 the low complexity of a list operation, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it states the purpose, the key identifier, and the returned fields. It could mention the role of course_id or behavior when the quiz doesn't exist, but these are 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?

Schema description coverage is 50%, with only the slug parameter described. The description reinforces slug's role as the quiz identifier, but it adds no meaning for course_id, leaving the agent to infer its purpose. This is acceptable because course_id is likely obvious from course context, but not fully compensated.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('all questions attached to a quiz'), and immediately distinguishes this from sibling tools like modify_question and import_gift by focusing on retrieval. The phrase 'identified by its slug' further pins down the exact scope.

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 clearly frames when to use the tool: when you need a read-only list of a quiz's questions. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the read-only declaration and contrast with mutation/modification siblings imply the appropriate context.

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