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 no information about side effects, return format, pagination behavior beyond the schema, or what criteria determine teacher availability. The description implies a read-only list operation but does not confirm this or explain the data freshness.

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 consists of a single short sentence that is not verbose, but it is under-specified rather than meaningfully concise. Every word should earn its place, but 'available' is left undefined and 'planning' is unmentioned, wasting the opportunity to clarify the tool's specific purpose.

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 `get_teachers` tool and the domain-specific 'planning' terminology in the name, the description fails to provide necessary context about the planning domain or the availability criteria. Without an output schema, the description should have explained what distinguishes these teachers, but this critical contextual information is missing.

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 complete descriptions for both parameters (`cursor` and `per_page`), documenting pagination behavior adequately. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter semantics, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 tool retrieves 'all teachers that are available' but fails to define what 'available' means (available for teaching? not busy? active status?) or distinguish this from the sibling `get_teachers` tool. The 'planning' context implied by the tool name is unexplained, leaving the scope ambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the generic `get_teachers` or other teacher-related tools, nor any mention of prerequisites or filtering capabilities. The description does not clarify what makes a teacher 'available' in this context.

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