Examplary MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation (implying read-only) and returns a 'list,' but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence adds value, earning its place.

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 complexity (fetching a list of student sessions), lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions or response format, leaving the agent with incomplete context for proper tool invocation.

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 input schema has 1 parameter ('id') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description doesn't mention parameters at all. It doesn't clarify what 'id' refers to (e.g., exam ID), its format, or constraints. With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, parameter understanding is inadequate.

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: 'Get a list of all student sessions for an exam, representing a set of answers from a student.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('student sessions'), and scope ('for an exam'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'getExamsidSessionssessionId', which appears to fetch a single session rather than a list.

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 alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an exam ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'getExamsidSessionssessionId' (for a single session) or 'getExamsid' (for exam details). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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