School MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output structure ('Shows weight, points earned vs possible, and percentage'), which helps compensate for the missing output schema. However, it omits safety indicators (read-only nature), error handling, or data freshness details.

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?

Three well-structured sentences: purpose definition, output specification, and use-case guidance. Each sentence earns its place with no redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action and resource.

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 tool's low complexity (single string parameter, no output schema), the description adequately compensates by detailing the expected return structure (weights, percentages). It meets minimum viability but could strengthen completeness by noting authentication requirements or error conditions.

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 for its single parameter (courseName). The description does not add parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation for high-coverage 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 clearly defines the action ('Get'), resource ('grade breakdown by assignment category'), and scope ('for a specific course'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like get_grade_summary or get_gradebook by specifying the categorical aggregation aspect (Tests, Homework, Quizzes).

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 an implied use case ('Useful for finding which category is dragging down a grade'), suggesting diagnostic scenarios. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparisons to alternatives like get_grade_details for individual assignments.

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