eduframe-mcp

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

While the annotations correctly identify this as read-only and idempotent, the description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide. It does not disclose error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID is not found), return format, or whether the operation is atomic.

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 (6 words) and consists of a single sentence. While this avoids verbosity, it is arguably under-specified rather than elegantly concise. However, the sentence is front-loaded and contains no wasted words or filler.

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 existence of the sibling tool get_options_of_custom_field, the description is incomplete because it fails to clarify that this retrieves a specific option by ID versus listing all options. For a 3-parameter read operation with annotations, the description should have addressed this distinction to prevent incorrect tool selection.

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 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific context (e.g., clarifying that object_type and field_slug identify the parent custom field, or explaining the relationship between the parameters). It neither improves upon nor contradicts the schema's generic 'ID of the parent resource' labels.

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 an option of a custom field' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with spaces added. It fails to specify what constitutes an 'option' in this domain (e.g., a dropdown value) and critically omits that this retrieves a single option by ID, distinguishing it from the sibling tool get_options_of_custom_field.

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 the plural alternative get_options_of_custom_field, nor are prerequisites (like knowing the field_slug and object_type) mentioned. The description offers no selection criteria or workflow context.

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