Retrieve the sequence of activities and assessments for a K-12 lesson by providing its identifier, optionally filtering by source, to plan instruction grounded in standards-aligned data.
The activities and assessments a lesson is made of, in sequence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| materialSource | No | ||
| lessonIdentifier | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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. It does reveal that results are ordered ('in sequence'), but it says nothing about read-only status, side effects, authentication requirements, errors, or whether it returns a list or a single structure.
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 short and contains no filler, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. A noun phrase with no verb and no parameter or usage context does not serve as an effective tool definition.
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?
Although an output schema exists, so return structure may be covered elsewhere, the description still omits usage guidance and parameter semantics. For a simple two-parameter tool this is a noticeable completeness gap.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions lessonIdentifier or materialSource. It adds no meaning beyond the parameter names and types already visible in the input 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 tool name supplies the action 'find' and the description identifies a specific resource: 'the activities and assessments a lesson is made of, in sequence.' This is clear and distinguishes the tool from the standards-oriented sibling tools, though the description itself is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb phrase.
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 gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_curriculum_lessons or the standards-related tools. There are no usage conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to siblings, so the agent must infer appropriateness entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.