edubase_mcp_reference

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by describing the substantive content of each reference (question types, formatting, scoring, node configuration, conditions) and which sibling tools depend on the format.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and then details the two enum branches. It is a single dense sentence with nested parentheses, which is slightly heavy but every clause contributes specific, non-redundant information.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what it returns, what each option contains, and which tools the format feeds into. Nothing material is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the enum values are self-describing, but the description goes further by explaining what each value ('questions', 'exam-journeys') actually contains and how it is consumed. This meaningfully augments the bare 'name of the reference document' schema text.

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 specific verb (read) and resource (reference document of EduBase formats) and enumerates exactly what each document covers. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like edubase_post_question or edubase_get_question, which perform actions rather than return format documentation.

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?

Gives clear context for use ('for writing questions and exam journeys without the EduBase skills') and names the consuming tools (edubase_post_question, edubase_get_exam_journey_graph, edubase_put_exam_journey_graph). It does not, however, state explicit exclusions or contrast with an alternative documentation source.

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