eduframe-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds no behavioral context beyond these annotations—such as what data structure is returned, error handling for invalid user_ids, or that results are paginated.

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 extremely brief (6 words), which avoids verbosity, though it contains a grammatical error ('an user' instead of 'a user'). It is front-loaded with the verb but arguably underspecified rather than optimally concise.

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 (4 parameters, 1 required, no output schema) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it fails to explain the domain concept of 'authentications' (evident from the provider enum values like azure_active_directory) or mention pagination behavior implied by cursor/per_page.

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 100% schema description coverage, the parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description mentions no parameters, so it adds no additional semantic value beyond the baseline.

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 states the basic action ('Get') and resource ('authentications of an user'), but it essentially restates the function name without adding specificity about what 'authentications' represents (e.g., identity provider connections). It does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_user.

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 (e.g., create_authentication or get_user), nor does it mention prerequisites or typical use cases.

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