eduframe-mcp

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

While annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds no behavioral context beyond this. It fails to disclose that idempotentHint=false means duplicate calls create duplicate groups, nor does it describe success indicators or side effects.

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 brief at four words and front-loaded, but the extreme brevency constitutes under-specification rather than efficient communication. Every word is necessary but collectively insufficient.

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 no output schema exists, the description should explain return values or success behavior, which it omits. It also fails to define what constitutes a material group (implied by parameter description to be related to courses) or how it differs from a material.

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?

With schema description coverage at 100%, the input schema fully documents the 'name' parameter including its relation to courses. The description adds no parameter semantics, meeting the baseline score 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 'Create a material group' is a tautology that merely restates the snake_case tool name in sentence form. It fails to distinguish from siblings like 'create_material' or explain what a material group represents in this domain.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'create_material', 'update_material_group', or 'delete_material_group'. No prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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