academy_quiz

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral transparency. It discloses that sign-in is required, which is useful. However, it doesn't describe what happens if the quiz is not available, if the lesson slug is missing, whether the response includes questions/answers, or any rate limits or side effects. It's a minimal disclosure beyond the schema.

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 very concise (one sentence), front-loaded with the core purpose. The parenthetical about sign-in adds value without bloat. It is not over-specified, though it could include slightly more guidance without harming conciseness.

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 tool has 4 parameters (none required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain how to construct a valid request (e.g., which identifiers are needed for which quiz types), nor does it hint at response structure. It mentions sign-in but not other requirements like completion status. For a complex retrieval tool, this falls short.

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% and none of the 4 parameters are described in the tool description. While the names (slug, level, locale, lessonSlug) suggest meaning, the description does not clarify how they interact—e.g., whether 'slug' and 'lessonSlug' serve different purposes, or if 'level' selects a checkpoint. The description adds no parameter context, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 identifies the tool as fetching a quiz, specifying two concrete types ('lesson quiz or end-of-level checkpoint'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like academy_lesson and academy_quiz_submit, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from academy_review or academy_levels beyond the quiz focus.

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 gives a clear object and context but no explicit guidance on when to use it over siblings. It implies use for retrieving quiz content before submission, but doesn't state exclusions (e.g., not for submitting answers, which is academy_quiz_submit). It lacks alternative tool mentions.

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