eduframe-mcp

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

While annotations correctly flag this as read-only and idempotent, the description adds no behavioral context—missing error handling (what happens if ID doesn't exist?), return format, or cache characteristics. It relies entirely on structured metadata.

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?

At three words, it is brief but underwritten rather than concise. The sentence fails to earn its place by providing information not already present in 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 simple CRUD getter, the description is insufficient given the presence of sibling 'get_labels'. It omits the critical distinction that this retrieves a single entity by identifier versus listing multiples, and provides no domain context for the 'label' resource.

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 label to retrieve'), the parameter is well-documented in structured form. The description adds no semantic detail about the ID format or constraints, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 a label' is tautological, restating the function name without clarifying what a 'label' represents in this domain (e.g., category tag, physical label). Critically, it fails to distinguish from sibling tool 'get_labels' (plural), leaving ambiguity about whether this retrieves one by ID or performs a filtered search.

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 singular retrieval versus 'get_labels' for listing, or versus 'add_label_to_order' for application. No prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid label ID) are mentioned.

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