eduframe-mcp

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

Annotations declare the operation as read-only and idempotent, which the description doesn't contradict, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond this. It fails to disclose that results are paginated (despite claiming 'all'), doesn't describe the return structure (no output schema exists), and doesn't explain whether tabs include inactive/disabled ones.

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 four-word description is not verbose, but it is underspecified rather than efficiently concise. Given the complexity of pagination and the ambiguous scope (global vs. course-specific), additional sentences are needed to earn full marks for appropriate sizing.

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?

Inadequate for a paginated list operation with no output schema. The description should explain the pagination pattern (cursor-based), the scope of 'all' (global list), and ideally hint at the return structure. As written, it leaves critical behavioral and contextual gaps unfilled.

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 for the two pagination parameters, the baseline is met. However, the description adds no semantic value regarding why these specific pagination controls exist or why there's no course filtering parameter, which would be expected given the tool name and sibling patterns.

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 (course tab records), but 'all' is misleading given the pagination parameters (cursor, per_page), and it fails to clarify what distinguishes a 'tab' from other course-related resources (courses, variants, locations) or explain why no course_id filter is required despite the tool name implying course-scoping.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_course, get_courses, or get_course_location. Given the unusual absence of a course identifier parameter compared to other course-related getters (e.g., get_planned_courses_by_course_id), the description should explicitly clarify this retrieves tabs across all courses.

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