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. While 'Get' implies a safe read operation, the description fails to mention pagination (cursor, per_page), extensive filtering capabilities (type, status, date ranges), or sorting behavior—all critical behavioral traits evident in the 12-parameter schema.

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, efficient sentence with no filler words or redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action and resource. While extremely minimal for a 12-parameter endpoint, it avoids the verbosity that would harm its conciseness score.

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 high complexity (12 parameters with rich filtering, pagination, and sorting) and the absence of both output schema and annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to indicate that this is a paginated list endpoint or that it supports filtering by status, type, and date ranges—information essential for correct invocation.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 12 parameters including course_id, cursor, filters, and sort options. The description mentions 'single course' which aligns with the required course_id parameter, but adds no additional semantic context (e.g., date formats, filter combinations) beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score.

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 clearly states the verb (Get), resource (planned course records), and scope (of a single course). However, while the word 'all' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling 'get_planned_courses_by_id_and_course_id', it does not explicitly clarify when to use this versus that specific-record alternative.

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (like the sibling get_planned_courses_by_id_and_course_id), nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing a valid course_id from get_courses. Usage must be inferred entirely from the parameter names and tool name.

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