Khan Academy MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format ('subject names, slugs, and descriptions') which is helpful, but doesn't mention behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or whether it's read-only. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but leaves gaps in behavioral context.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose and return values, the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words or redundancy.

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 (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, though it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, any limitations). The absence of an output schema makes the return format disclosure in the description particularly valuable.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools. No additional parameter context is required or provided.

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 tool's purpose: 'List all top-level Khan Academy subjects and popular courses' with specific verbs ('List') and resources ('subjects and popular courses'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on top-level subjects as a starting point, though not explicitly contrasting with tools like 'get_course' or 'search'.

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 clear context for usage: 'Use this as a starting point to explore Khan Academy's content.' This implies when to use it (initial exploration) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'get_content' or 'search' for more specific queries.

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