Show Quiz Responses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on what a response record contains, whether results are paginated, scoped to course/lecture/quiz, or whether the account parameter is needed for access.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. However, its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient information density — one clause cannot carry the purpose, scope and usage guidance this tool needs.

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?

The tool is a read-only list operation with no output schema, so the description should at least frame what is returned (individual responses vs. aggregates, filtering scope). Given a rich sibling set and a three-key required scope, the description leaves the agent without enough to confidently choose or interpret results.

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%, and each of the four parameters is documented directly in the schema (including the subtle 'account is not an authorization proof' note). The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a verb and resource ('Fetch the responses of quiz'), so the basic action is inferable, but the phrasing is awkward and it never differentiates itself from siblings like get_quiz or list_quizzes. An agent can guess what it does but gets no help distinguishing it within the quiz tool family.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite or scope conditions, and no mention of any alternative tool. The agent must infer everything about selection from the name alone.

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