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. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description fails to disclose what happens if the ID doesn't exist (404 error?), whether the user needs specific permissions to view the element, or the structure of the return value.

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 three words, the description is technically concise, but this brevity represents under-specification rather than efficiency. Given the complexity of the domain (evidenced by 100+ sibling tools including create_program_element and update_program_element), the description fails to front-load critical context about 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?

For a tool in what appears to be a complex LMS/curriculum management system (with related tools for program editions, enrollments, and planning), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the relationship between a program element and other entities (programs, editions), nor does it clarify the distinction between this tool and related retrieval siblings, leaving significant gaps in an agent's understanding.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage (the 'id' parameter is documented as 'ID of the program element to retrieve'), the baseline score applies. The description adds no additional parameter context (such as where to obtain valid IDs or formatting requirements), but the schema is self-sufficient.

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 an element' uses a generic verb and resource that fails to specify what constitutes a 'program element' in this domain (e.g., a course module, lesson, or curriculum component). Crucially, it omits 'program' from the resource name, making it less informative than the tool name itself, and provides no differentiation from siblings like get_program_elements (plural list) or get_elements_of_program_edition.

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 single-item retrieval tool versus the plural get_program_elements (likely a list operation) or get_elements_of_program_edition. There are no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., obtaining the ID from another call) and no error conditions described.

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