Khan Academy MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the tool's function (browsing hierarchy, returning subtopics/content) and the drilling-down workflow. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, error conditions, or response format details, which would be helpful for a tool with no output schema.

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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or wasted text, making it highly efficient.

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 moderate complexity (hierarchy browsing with parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the purpose, workflow, and relationship to other tools. However, it could be more complete by briefly mentioning what the return structure looks like (e.g., 'returns a tree structure') since there's no output schema to provide that information.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain slug format examples or depth implications beyond the schema's description). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Browse') and resource ('Khan Academy's subject/topic hierarchy'), specifies the action ('returns its subtopics and content items'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by mentioning 'list_subjects' as a prerequisite. This provides specific, actionable purpose.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Given a topic slug') and provides clear guidance on prerequisites ('Use `list_subjects` first to get valid slugs, then drill down'), including naming an alternative tool for the initial step. This gives complete usage context.

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