eduframe-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides almost none. It does not clarify what constitutes an 'element' in this domain, whether results are paginated (despite cursor/per_page parameters), or the return structure.

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 one sentence, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient information density. It is front-loaded by default due to its length, though the content is tautological.

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 the domain (evidenced by 100+ sibling tools with similar naming patterns like 'program', 'edition', and 'element'), the description is inadequate. It fails to clarify relationships between entities or explain what differentiates this from similar list operations.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (id, cursor, per_page) documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-specific context, meeting the baseline score 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 'Get the elements of a program edition' essentially restates the tool name without adding specificity. It fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like 'get_program_elements' or 'get_program_element', leaving ambiguity about whether this retrieves elements within a specific edition instance or something else.

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_program_elements' or 'get_program_edition'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid program edition ID) or when pagination parameters are required.

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