eduframe-mcp

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

While the annotations correctly indicate this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, the description adds no behavioral context beyond this. It does not disclose that results are paginated (despite the cursor parameter), does not explain the default page size (25), and does not describe what constitutes a 'catalog variant' in this domain.

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 four words long, but this represents under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. The single sentence fails to front-load critical behavioral information (pagination, filtering capabilities) and wastes the opportunity to clarify the tool's 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?

Given 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It omits essential context for a paginated list operation: the pagination mechanism, the relationship between filters, and the nature of the returned catalog variants. Without an output schema, the description should compensate by describing the return structure, which it does not.

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 parameter semantics are fully handled by the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, but the baseline score of 3 applies since the schema comprehensively documents all 6 parameters including enum values and defaults.

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 variants' essentially restates the tool name with the addition of 'all', which is misleading since the tool supports filtering (product_id, variantable_type) and pagination. It fails to distinguish this list operation from the singular sibling tool get_catalog_variant or explain what distinguishes a 'catalog variant' from other variant types (e.g., course_variants).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_catalog_variant (singular) or get_catalog_products. There is no mention of when to apply specific filters (variantable_id vs product_id) or how to handle pagination workflows with the cursor parameter.

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