eduframe-mcp

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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this, failing to disclose pagination behavior, rate limiting, or whether 'all' implies unfiltered access (the schema suggests no filter parameters exist). No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely brief at three words, avoiding unnecessary verbosity. However, given the tool's complexity (paginated list endpoint among 100+ siblings), this brevity constitutes under-specification rather than efficient communication—every word earns its place, but insufficient words are present.

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 list endpoint with pagination parameters (cursor, per_page) and no output schema, the description omits critical context: it does not explain the pagination mechanism, the maximum page size, or what fields are returned. Given the presence of related material operations (create_material, delete_material, etc.), the lack of cross-reference guidance is a significant gap.

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 for fetching the next page of results', 'Number of results per page'), the baseline score applies. The description adds no supplementary parameter guidance, examples, or validation rules beyond what the schema already provides.

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 all material records' is essentially a tautology of the tool name 'get_materials', merely restating it with articles. While 'all' hints at plurality distinguishing it from the sibling 'get_material' (singular), it fails to specify that this is a paginated list operation rather than a bulk fetch, and omits any domain-specific context about what 'materials' represent in this system.

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 tool versus siblings like 'get_material' (single fetch), 'get_material_group', or 'get_material_groups'. The description does not mention pagination requirements, default limits (per_page defaults to 25 per schema), or cursor management strategies necessary for successful usage.

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