eduframe-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. While 'Get all' implies a list operation, the description fails to mention pagination behavior (despite cursor/per_page parameters), read-only safety, or error handling (e.g., invalid planned_course_id). This leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no redundancy. However, given the complete absence of annotations and output schema, it may be overly terse—one additional sentence explaining pagination or return behavior would improve utility without sacrificing clarity.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally viable for a 3-parameter tool. It identifies the resource type returned (teacher enrollments) but omits list behavior details, pagination guidance, or data scope that would help an agent handle the response correctly.

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 parent resource', 'Cursor for fetching the next page', etc.), so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'given planned course' which aligns with the required parameter, but adds no additional semantics about valid ID formats or pagination usage beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with clear resource ('teacher enrollments') and scope ('by planned course'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_enrollments' (likely for students) or 'get_teacher' (profiles vs enrollments), which would help the agent select correctly among the 100+ available tools.

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 tool versus alternatives. Given siblings like 'create_teacher_enrollment_by_planned_course_id' and 'get_enrollments', explicit guidance on read vs write scenarios or teacher vs student data would be necessary for a higher score.

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