list_quizzes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds the meaningful behavioral detail that New Quizzes are excluded, which is useful. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like whether the operation is read-only, pagination, or ordering. The tool is a list operation, but that is not explicitly stated as safe or non-destructive.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action ('List classic quizzes') and adds a crucial scope limitation. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity (one obvious parameter) and the presence of an output schema that likely documents return fields, the description covers the core scope. It does not mention pagination or any side effects, but for a list tool this is less critical. It could name the alternative for New Quizzes, but it is otherwise sufficient.

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 should compensate. It mentions 'in a course' which implies the course_identifier parameter, but it does not explicitly explain the parameter's meaning or format. Since the parameter name is self-explanatory and the description references 'course', it provides some value, but not much beyond the schema.

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 it lists classic quizzes with due dates and points, and explicitly excludes New Quizzes. This gives a specific verb and resource, and the exclusion narrows scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_assignments, which might also return quizzes, so it lacks full sibling distinction.

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 that this tool is for classic quizzes only by saying 'Does not include New Quizzes,' but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or name the tool for New Quizzes. There is no guidance on when not to use this tool, only a limitation.

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