edubase_get_quizes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'owned and managed' scope filter, which is helpful context beyond the annotations. It doesn't describe return format or pagination behavior, but the output schema is present and annotations sufficiently cover the behavioral contract, so the extra context is adequately handled.

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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences. The first states the primary action and scope, the second defines the entity. Every sentence adds value with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail. It is efficient 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 that the tool has an output schema (though not shown), a fully documented parameter schema, and comprehensive annotations (read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive), the description is sufficient for calling the tool correctly. It clarifies the resource type and hierarchical position. The only minor gap is lack of explicit mention of pagination, but this is covered by the parameters and output schema, so it's not a significant omission.

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?

The JSON schema provides 100% documentation coverage for all three parameters (page, limit, search) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states. Therefore, the default score of 3 applies per the rubric.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('owned and managed Quiz sets'), making the tool's purpose clear. It also explains what Quiz sets are (named collections of questions, middle level of hierarchy), which adds conceptual context. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like edubase_get_quiz or edubase_get_questions, but the plural 'Quiz sets' and the ownership scoping distinguish it adequately for an agent.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other siblings. It does not mention alternatives (e.g., get_quiz for a single quiz, get_quiz_settings for settings) or conditions under which this listing is appropriate. The only hint is 'owned and managed', but that's more of a scope definition than usage guidance. Given many sibling tools in the list, explicit routing is missing.

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