eduframe-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies read-only access, the description fails to disclose pagination behavior (despite cursor/per_page parameters), what data structure is returned (no output schema exists), or whether this endpoint has rate limits.

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 extremely compact at four words with zero redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action verb and contains no filler text; every word serves the core purpose statement.

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 with 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the return value format, what defines a 'failed' notification state, or how pagination interacts with the time-range filters.

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 structured fields already document all 5 parameters adequately. The description adds no additional semantic context (e.g., date format expectations for 'start'/'end'), meeting the baseline expectation for well-documented schemas.

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 clear verb ('Get') and specific resource ('failed webhook notifications'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_webhook' or 'get_webhooks' by targeting notification delivery failures rather than configuration. However, it lacks domain context explaining what constitutes a 'failed' notification.

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, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid webhook_id from 'get_webhooks' or 'create_webhook'). There are no exclusions or workflow hints.

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