School MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It valuably clarifies the return format ('document names and metadata, not binary content'), setting expectations about data completeness. However, it lacks information on safety characteristics, potential rate limits, or pagination behavior for large document lists.

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 two efficiently structured sentences. The first establishes purpose and scope with examples; the second clarifies output boundaries. There is no redundant or filler text, and the critical limitation ('not binary content') is prominently placed.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the tool is structurally simple. The description adequately compensates for the missing output schema by specifying the return values (names/metadata) and limitations (no binary content). For a basic listing operation, this level of documentation is sufficient.

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. According to the scoring rubric, this establishes a baseline of 4. The description correctly implies no filtering or input parameters are required by the standalone phrasing 'Get the list'.

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 states the verb ('Get'), resource ('documents'), and scope ('available to the student'), with helpful examples ('forms, letters'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish when to use this versus similar student information tools like 'get_student_info' or 'get_messages'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, filtering capabilities (none possible given zero parameters), or contextual triggers for selecting this over other student data retrieval tools.

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