eduframe-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description lacks details about error handling (e.g., 404 behavior), return format, or whether the operation is idempotent.

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 appropriately brief (4 words), but contains a grammatical error ('an planning') and the word 'record' is slightly redundant given the 'get' prefix. The brevity is acceptable, but the error and lack of front-loaded distinction from the plural variant reduce the 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?

For a simple CRUD retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it misses the opportunity to clarify that this retrieves a single entity by ID (unlike the plural variant) or to hint at the return structure.

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 ('ID of the planning event to retrieve'), so the schema fully documents the parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but with complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the basic verb ('Get') and resource ('planning event record'), but it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'get_planning_events' (plural). It also contains a grammatical error ('an planning' instead of 'a planning') and borders on tautology by nearly restating the tool name.

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 single-record retrieval tool versus the 'get_planning_events' list endpoint. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing to know the specific ID) or error conditions (e.g., invalid ID).

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