eduframe-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond these annotations—it does not describe the return structure, error cases (e.g., invalid ID), or what constitutes a 'course location' 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 appropriately brief at five words and one sentence. However, while concise, it borders on under-specification given the lack of differentiation from sibling tools.

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 simple CRUD retrieval with complete input schema and behavioral annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks critical context regarding the output structure and fails to clarify the singular-vs-plural distinction necessary for correct tool selection among siblings.

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 ('ID of the course location to retrieve'), the schema fully documents the single parameter. The description adds no semantic information about the parameter, warranting the baseline score of 3 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 uses the verb 'Get' and resource 'course location record', but this largely restates the tool name `get_course_location` with minimal elaboration. It fails to distinguish this singular retrieval from the sibling tool `get_course_locations` (plural list), leaving the scope ambiguous.

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_course_locations` (for listing) or `get_meeting_location` (for related location types). There are no stated prerequisites or conditions for usage.

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