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 offers none. It omits critical context: whether 'all' implies unbounded retrieval or paginated results, default sorting, permission filtering, or response structure (array vs. wrapped object).

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?

At four words, the description is technically concise, but it is under-structured and front-loaded with minimal value. It achieves brevity by sacrificing necessary context (pagination notes, filtering limitations) that would help an agent invoke the tool correctly.

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 collection-fetching tool with pagination parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention the pagination mechanism, the relationship to singular retrieval, or any filtering constraints. Given the lack of output schema, additional descriptive context was required but absent.

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 provides 100% description coverage for both parameters (cursor and per_page), establishing adequate baseline documentation. The description adds no supplementary semantic context—such as cursor format or pagination strategy—but the schema sufficiency prevents a lower 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 states the basic action ('Get') and resource ('planning event records'), but remains vague regarding scope—'all' is ambiguous (global vs. filtered) and it fails to distinguish from the sibling tool 'get_planning_event' (singular), leaving the agent to infer the difference from naming conventions alone.

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 list endpoint versus the singular 'get_planning_event', nor does it explain pagination workflow despite the presence of cursor/per_page parameters. The agent receives no signal about query patterns or result set expectations.

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