eduframe-mcp

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

While the description does not contradict the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints), it adds no behavioral context beyond them. It fails to mention pagination behavior (cursor/per_page), sorting capabilities, or what data structure is returned, all critical for a list endpoint with 7 parameters.

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 brief (4 words) and front-loaded, but the inclusion of 'all' creates ambiguity given the filtering capabilities, reducing effectiveness. It wastes the limited space on a misleading absolute rather than qualifying the scope.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters including pagination, filtering, and sorting—and no output schema provided—the description is inadequate. It omits critical context about the tool's capabilities, return format, and relationship to sibling tools that an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description itself adds no information about parameter semantics, usage patterns (e.g., that 'published' only accepts the string 'published'), or examples of valid 'sort' values, relying entirely on the schema documentation.

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 'Get all catalog products' is essentially a tautology of the tool name. The word 'all' is misleading given the tool supports filtering (category_id, search, published) and pagination. It fails to distinguish from the sibling tool 'get_catalog_product' (singular) or clarify what constitutes a 'catalog product' versus other product types in the system.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this list endpoint versus the singular 'get_catalog_product', nor does it mention prerequisites like authentication requirements or suggest when to apply specific filters (e.g., using 'published' vs fetching all).

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