list_quiz_submissions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the returned fields (scores, completion status) and implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose pagination, filtering behavior, whether only graded submissions are returned, or any side effects. Significant gaps remain.

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 a single concise sentence that immediately states the action and resource. No filler or redundancy; it is appropriately front-loaded and minimal.

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 output schema exists (though not shown) so return values need not be explained. However, the description lacks usage guidance, does not clarify scoping (e.g., all submissions or only those with scores), and does not address potential ambiguity with sibling list tools. It is minimally adequate but leaves important context unstated.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides no explanation of what course_identifier or quiz_id represent, no format expectations, or any guidance beyond their names. While the parameter names are self-explanatory, the description adds zero semantic value and fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'student submissions for a classic quiz', and specifies the included data (scores and completion status). It distinguishes itself from generic list_submissions by the qualifier 'classic quiz', though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternative.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs siblings like list_submissions, list_ungraded_submissions, or list_missing_submissions. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or preferred contexts for selection.

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