eduframe-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate error handling (e.g., ID not found), authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether this is a safe read operation beyond the implicit 'Get' verb.

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 single sentence is brief, it represents under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. The extreme brevity forces the agent to rely entirely on inference from the tool name and schema rather than providing actionable context.

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 rich ecosystem of sibling tools (create_program, update_program, delete_program, get_program_edition), the description is inadequate. It lacks domain-specific context (educational programs vs. software) and fails to explain relationships to related program entities.

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% coverage with the 'id' parameter already documented. The description adds no parameter-specific context, syntax examples, or domain meaning beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 a program' largely restates the tool name (get_program) without distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_programs' (list vs. single) or 'get_program_edition'. It fails to clarify what constitutes a 'program' in this educational/training context.

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 provided on when to use this single-retrieval tool versus the bulk 'get_programs' alternative, nor prerequisites like needing a valid program ID beforehand. The description offers no usage constraints or workflow positioning.

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