academy_quiz_submit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it returns score, pass status, XP awarded, per-question correctness, and explanations, and mentions certificate issuance under specific conditions. However, it lacks details on error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects like data persistence, which are important for a submission tool.

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 the core action and outcomes, using two efficient sentences with zero waste. Every sentence adds value: the first explains the submission and returns, the second adds conditional certificate issuance. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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's complexity (submission with outcomes and conditional certificate), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job covering the return values and a key behavioral aspect. However, it could improve by mentioning error cases or response structure more explicitly, but it is largely complete for guiding usage.

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 both parameters (slug and answers) adequately. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples for slug or validation rules for answers. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 the specific action ('Submit answers to a quiz') and resource ('a quiz'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like academy_quiz (likely for viewing) or academy_review_grade (likely for grading reviews). It explicitly mentions the outcome of submission, which helps differentiate its purpose.

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 by mentioning 'If checkpoint and passed → certificate issued,' which suggests context for when a certificate might be generated, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like academy_quiz or academy_review_grade. No clear exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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