list_quizzes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds 'Does not start an attempt,' which is a domain-specific behavioral clarification, but this largely restates the read-only nature already encoded in the annotations. It does not add details about response behavior or potential side effects beyond that.

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 short sentences deliver the core purpose and a critical exclusion with zero filler. The main action is front-loaded, and every word adds meaning. Excellent conciseness for an agent-facing description.

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 single-parameter read-only listing tool, the description is largely complete: it states what is returned (quiz metadata and availability) and what is not done (start attempt). There is no output schema, so the description partially covers return semantics; it could add pagination or filtering details, but those are not essential for this simple operation.

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%, with the single courseId parameter described as 'Exact Brightspace numeric identifier from another tool.' This gives the agent clear source and format guidance. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already carries the full burden, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Read quiz metadata and availability.' It also draws a boundary by adding 'Does not start an attempt,' which helps distinguish it from quiz-attempt operations. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling list tools like list_assignments, so it stops short of a 5.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: whenever quiz metadata and availability are needed. The explicit statement 'Does not start an attempt' serves as a useful when-not clarification. It does not name an alternative tool or provide broader decision logic, but the exclusion is valuable.

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