eduframe-mcp

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as error handling when the ID is not found, caching behavior, or clarification regarding the 'slug' terminology mismatch with the integer 'id' parameter.

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 a single sentence and appropriately brief for a simple retrieval tool. It is front-loaded with the action verb, though the content provides minimal additive value beyond the tool name itself.

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 single-parameter read operation with comprehensive annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, the unresolved discrepancy between the 'slug' terminology in the name/description and the 'id' parameter in the schema leaves a notable gap in contextual clarity.

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 established. However, the description refers to an 'object slug' while the input schema accepts an integer 'id', creating semantic confusion without clarifying whether these terms are interchangeable in this context or which identifier format is actually expected.

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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('custom object'), but it is essentially a tautology of the tool name ('get_custom_object_by_object_slug'). It fails to distinguish from the sibling tool 'get_custom_objects' (plural) or clarify what constitutes an 'object slug'.

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 single-object retrieval tool versus the sibling 'get_custom_objects' (likely a list operation) or 'get_custom_record'. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative suggestions.

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