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 the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying it's a read operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., for invalid IDs), rate limits, or response format. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic purpose.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get a single exam session by its ID') and adds clarifying context ('representing a set of answers from a student'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it appropriately concise for a simple retrieval tool.

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 (retrieving a specific resource with two parameters), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but omits essential details like parameter meanings, behavioral traits (e.g., error cases), and output structure, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 0% description coverage, with two required parameters ('id' and 'sessionId') undocumented. The description doesn't explain what these parameters represent (e.g., 'id' likely refers to exam ID, 'sessionId' to session ID), their formats, or relationships. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving parameters ambiguous.

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 single exam session by its ID, representing a set of answers from a student.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('exam session'), and scope ('single' by ID). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getExamsidSessions' (which likely lists multiple sessions), though the 'single' vs. 'list' distinction is implied.

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 sibling tools such as 'getExamsidSessions' (for listing sessions) or 'getExamsid' (for exam details), nor does it specify prerequisites like needing an exam ID. Usage is implied only by the description's focus on retrieving a specific session.

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