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 of behavioral disclosure. It establishes the hypothetical nature effectively but fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only (doesn't modify actual grades), what the return format looks like (percentage, letter grade, or detailed breakdown), or any rate limiting considerations.

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 two high-value sentences: one defining the function and one providing a concrete example. There is no redundant information, and the structure efficiently front-loads the core purpose before illustrating with the example.

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 100% schema coverage and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the input requirements. It could be improved by mentioning the return value format (e.g., projected percentage or letter grade), but the core functionality is sufficiently described for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant value through the concrete example showing the exact array structure [{score: 85, outOf: 100}]. This clarifies the semantics of how to construct hypothetical assignments beyond the raw schema definitions, particularly for the nested object structure.

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 verb 'Project' with clear resource 'student's grade' and scope 'hypothetical scores on future assignments.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_grade_details or calculate_grade_needed by emphasizing the hypothetical/future scenario aspect rather than current state or target calculation.

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 example 'what if I got 85, 90, and 95 on my next 3 assignments' provides clear contextual guidance on when to invoke this tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it (e.g., doesn't mention to use calculate_grade_needed instead for target-grade calculations) or explicit naming of alternatives.

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