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 reveals nothing about pagination limits, response format, or performance characteristics. It does not explain what data structure constitutes a 'conflict', how conflicts are detected, or what scope 'all' encompasses.

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?

While the three-word description is brief, it fails the 'every sentence earns its place' standard because the single sentence provides only tautological information without actionable context. The extreme brevity constitutes under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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 planning domain evident in sibling tools (courses, teachers, enrollments, events), the description inadequately explains what planning conflicts are, what causes them, or what the return structure contains. With no output schema provided, the description should explain the return values but omits this entirely.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both `cursor` and `per_page` parameters, adequately documenting the pagination interface. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, the description does not need to compensate and meets the baseline expectation for this dimension.

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 conflicts' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name while omitting the 'planning' qualifier that provides domain context. It fails to specify what constitutes a conflict (scheduling, resource, or availability conflicts) or distinguish this from sibling tools like `get_planning_events` or `get_planned_courses_by_course_id`.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites such as required filters or permissions. There is no indication of whether this returns conflicts for all entities in the system or requires specific planning context to be useful.

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