Identify common student misconceptions tied to a K-12 standard and get the corresponding teacher moves to address them.
Return common misconceptions and the teacher move for each.
Pass caseIdentifierUUID or a bare code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | No | ||
| subject | No | ||
| caseIdentifierUUID | No |
| 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. It discloses the return type (misconceptions and teacher moves) but says nothing about behavior: whether it requires exact matches, what happens if both code and caseIdentifierUUID are provided, whether subject is needed, or any error/edge-case behavior. The phrase 'or a bare code' hints at flexibility but leaves ambiguity.
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 very short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The second sentence gives a direct usage hint. It earns its place, though it could be slightly more structured by adding a sentence about subject or alternatives.
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 there is an output schema, the return format is covered. However, the tool has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no guidance on when to use this vs siblings. The description leaves the 'subject' parameter unexplained and doesn't clarify identifier precedence or requiredness. This is incomplete for reliable invocation.
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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that code or caseIdentifierUUID can be used as identifiers, but it does not explain the 'subject' parameter at all, nor does it clarify the relationship between the three parameters. With 3 undocumented parameters and only partial guidance, this is a significant gap.
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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Return common misconceptions and the teacher move for each.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools that find standards, progressions, learning components, lessons, and materials. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.
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 a usage hint: 'Pass caseIdentifierUUID or a bare code.' This implies the tool is used when you have one of those identifiers and need misconceptions. But it doesn't explain when to choose this over siblings, nor does it clarify the role of the 'subject' parameter or when to use code vs caseIdentifierUUID.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.