School 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. It successfully discloses the scope of returned data ('full course-by-course data including current grades, all assignments, scores, and missing work'), but does not explicitly address safety (read-only status), authentication requirements, or rate limiting implications of such a comprehensive data dump.

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 exactly three sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and each earns its place: the first establishes purpose, the second details the payload, and the third provides usage context. There is no redundant or wasteful language.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately compensates by detailing what the tool returns ('current grades, all assignments, scores, and missing work'). However, it could briefly mention whether this includes historical data or only current term information.

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 contains zero parameters, which per guidelines establishes a baseline score of 4. The description correctly implies no filtering is possible by stating it returns 'full' and 'comprehensive' data for all courses, aligning with the empty parameters schema.

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 specific verbs ('Get', 'Returns') and clearly identifies the resource as a 'comprehensive grade context dump' containing 'full course-by-course data.' It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings like get_gpa or get_missing_assignments by emphasizing 'comprehensive' coverage versus targeted queries.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'as a starting point for complex analysis' with concrete examples like 'what should I focus on this week.' This implicitly contrasts with sibling tools that handle specific, narrow queries (e.g., get_grade_summary, calculate_grade_needed).

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