eduframe-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'all' scope indicator, suggesting an unfiltered list operation, but provides no additional context on pagination behavior, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the action verb and contains no filler words. While extremely brief, every word earns its place in describing the core operation.

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 complexity of this API (100+ sibling tools) and lack of output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to define what constitutes a 'credit category', how it relates to 'credits', or what data structure is returned.

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 (cursor and per_page are well-documented in the schema), the baseline score applies. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but none are needed given the comprehensive schema.

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 a clear verb+resource pattern ('Get all credit category records') that states the tool's basic function. However, it fails to differentiate from siblings like 'get_credits' or 'get_categories', leaving ambiguity about whether this returns categories of credits, credits themselves, or general categories.

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 alternatives like 'get_credits' or 'get_categories'. Does not mention pagination requirements or when to prefer this over filtered retrieval methods.

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