Kloudy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower; the description still reinforces this and adds real substance by describing the return shape (up to twenty candidates with name, source, link, capability tags and a heuristic score). It does not describe rate limits, error behavior, or what happens when a page is empty.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and scope in the first sentence, then returns, then the read-only guarantee. Every sentence is short and earns its place, though the closing ask/introduce sentence duplicates the operation enum description already present in the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the return-content description, and the safety profile is well covered by annotations plus the explicit read-only sentence. Gaps are minor: no mention of empty-result handling, result ranking meaning, or how deeply offset pagination should be driven.

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 100%, so the schema already carries goal, limit, offset and the operation enum. The description echoes 'a few task keywords' and the twenty-result page cap but contributes no formatting, syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3 case.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find public MCP servers, tools and SDKs') plus the input modality ('a few task keywords') and the return payload. It only implicitly separates itself from siblings, via 'does not install, connect, call or run tools', without naming kloudy_connect_card or the kloudy_build_* tools as the place to go for those actions.

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 read-only disclaimer implies 'use something else to install or connect', but no sibling is named and no when-not-to-use rule is given. The 'Use ask ... or introduce ...' sentence is really guidance for the operation enum, which the schema already documents at 100% coverage, so it adds little routing value.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one useful behavioral fact — that submitted choices grant no install/execution/spending authority — but says nothing about side effects, state mutation, validation failures, or what happens to the nested answer object. For a stateful build-flow tool this is a significant gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, so it is not bloated. However the middle sentences are dense and ambiguous, packing several undefined concepts ('component queries', 'display pages', 'useful selection') into a compact space without clarifying any of them.

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?

For a tool with a large nested input object, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It neither explains the many answer fields nor describes the flow state transitions it participates in, leaving an agent unable to invoke it correctly beyond the happy path.

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% across a deeply nested answer object with roughly twenty properties. The description hints at only two of them ('short component queries' ~ components[].label/query, 'complete useful selection' ~ optionIds/selection) while flowId, cardId, and the remaining fields go undocumented in both schema and description.

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 verb and object ('Return the user answer to the exact Kloudy question'), which is more specific than a bare tautology, but 'the exact Kloudy question' is opaque jargon and it never explains what a Kloudy question is or how this differs from siblings like kloudy_project_stage or kloudy_connect_card. An agent cannot confidently distinguish it from the other build-flow tools.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this tool versus its siblings, nor any prerequisites or sequencing (e.g., after kloudy_build_start, before kloudy_build_state). The only constraint given ('Choices do not authorize installation, execution or spending') is a safety boundary, not usage guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: it returns 'useful partial matches and honest gaps' rather than failing outright, and it clarifies that email is a contact hint, never authentication, forestalling a common misuse. It stops short of describing auth requirements or persistence semantics for flowId.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by resume semantics and the email caveat. The stack enumeration is a long list but earns its place by scoping what 'assemble' covers.

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?

For a 3-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers return behavior loosely and two of three parameters, but leaves goal undocumented and gives no sense of the response shape or flow lifecycle beyond 'partial matches and gaps'.

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 coverage is 0%, so the schema documents nothing. The description rescues flowId ('resume the existing flowId and pinned stack') and email ('contact hint, never authentication'), but the goal parameter is left entirely unexplained despite being the obvious primary input.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Consult Kloudy to assemble or improve a project' with a concrete list of stack categories. It doesn't distinguish itself from close siblings like kloudy_build_answer or kloudy_build_state, but the assembly/start intent is legible.

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?

'Resume the existing flowId and pinned stack' implies this is the entry/resume point of a build flow, which is useful context. However, it never says when to pick this over kloudy_build_answer or kloudy_build_state, leaving the routing to inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses read-only and non-advancing behavior, but omits auth requirements, error handling, and idempotency, leaving gaps for a tool that takes a flowId.

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 a single front-loaded sentence stating the verb and the state it returns. Every word earns its place with no filler.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description names the returned state, which is helpful. But it leaves the required flowId completely unexplained and provides no return format detail beyond a bare list, so it is only partially complete.

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 single required parameter flowId is never mentioned or explained in the description. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter's name, so an agent must guess what flowId identifies.

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?

"Read" is a specific verb, and the description names exactly what is read: the current Kloudy question, selected candidates, and connection boundaries. The phrase "without advancing" distinguishes it from siblings like kloudy_build_answer or kloudy_build_start, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 phrase "without advancing" implies this tool is for inspecting state when you do not want to progress the build, which gives some context. However, it does not state explicit when-to-use conditions, when-not-to-use conditions, or name alternative tools for advancing.

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

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: copying the command installs nothing and authorizes no private tools, the card should be called only once, and text-only hosts behave identically. This clarifies absence of side effects and host compatibility.

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?

Four tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the prerequisite flow and the caveats. Nothing is padded, though the density makes it slightly harder to scan than a crisper two-sentence form.

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?

For a one-parameter display-only tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition supplies the workflow, the side-effect disclaimer, and host behavior. It is essentially complete, with only sibling differentiation left unaddressed.

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 100% and the enum values are documented, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description's 'with the returned mode' merely echoes the schema's own note that the value comes from find_mcp_tools, adding little new meaning.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Show sign-in availability or the one-step install card.' That is clear and scoped, and it names find_mcp_tools as the routing prerequisite. It does not differentiate itself from the other sibling show_tool_preferences_card, so it lands just below the top band.

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?

It gives an explicit sequence: first call find_mcp_tools with operation ask, and only if that returns kind account/connect, call this card once with the returned mode. The condition that selects this tool and the alternative path (don't call it otherwise) are both spelled out.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it explicitly states the operation is read-only and 'never installs, executes or grants access', which directly addresses the safety profile an agent needs. It still omits auth requirements, side-effect edge cases, and any sense of return shape, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences with the scope constraint front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the second sentence's emphasis on what the tool does not do slightly buries what it does return.

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?

For a tool with a required nested-object parameter, zero schema documentation, and no output schema, the description covers only the safety angle. An agent still cannot determine what 'draft' should contain or what 'inert source metadata and planning choices' concretely looks like.

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%, with three parameters including two nested objects, yet the description mentions none of 'draft', 'answer', or 'flowId'. The agent gets no guidance on what to put in the required 'draft' object, so the description fails to compensate for the schema 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 gives a verb ('Review') and a resource ('optional business-stage resources for an exact pinned project'), which separates it from the kloudy_build_* siblings. However, 'business-stage resources' is jargon that an agent cannot resolve without external knowledge, and it never states what the tool actually returns in concrete terms. Purpose is implied rather than precisely stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among siblings like kloudy_build_state or kloudy_build_start. The phrase 'for an exact pinned project' hints at a precondition but never explains when an agent should pick this tool over its siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable boundaries the annotations cannot express: it "displays choices only; does not install or run tools" and should be shown once rather than repeatedly.

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 short sentences that are front-loaded with what is shown, then when to use it, then the boundary. Each sentence carries distinct information, with only minor overlap between the usage and boundary statements.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly conveys that this is a display-only card and clarifies it does not perform installs or execution. Only minor gaps remain, such as what the agent should do after the card is shown.

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 100% and both parameters carry enum values with descriptions (including the 'chatbot' default and 'changes wording only' note). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource — it shows a card with three specific questions (tool types, where projects run, update presentation). This is far more specific than a restated title, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like kloudy_connect_card.

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?

It states the triggering condition ("Use when the user wants to set or change these preferences") and adds an explicit negative guard ("Show once, not for every tool"). Alternatives are not named, but the when/when-not coverage is clear.

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

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world profile, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the IDE performs the mockup generation, Kloudy generates no model or image, and the selection carries no install, account connection, or spending consent. Those side-effect and consent clarifications go well beyond what the annotations provide.

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?

Six short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and each subsequent sentence covering a distinct concern (discovery alternative, generation limits, consent). It is slightly repetitive in places, but nothing is filler and the ordering is sensible for an agent scanning quickly.

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?

With no output schema, two optional enum parameters, and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is returned, that selection triggers no downstream action, and that the IDE rather than the server produces any artifact. No material gap remains for calling this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns a bit more by giving human-readable meaning to the otherwise machine-styled enum values (vite-workbench, astro-publishing, next-portal as Vite/Astro/Next.js framework examples) and by framing the whole call as presentation-only. It still adds no format or dependency detail beyond that.

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 first sentence states a concrete action (offer three fixed framework layout examples) and names the exact options (Vite, Astro, Next.js), so the agent knows this returns a presentation choice set. It explicitly separates itself from the sibling find_mcp_tools, though the phrasing is somewhat indirect and the purpose is delivered partly through negation ('not goal-based tool discovery') rather than a plain verb+resource statement.

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?

It states when to use this tool (presenting framework layout examples) and when not to, naming the alternative explicitly: 'For tools matching a task, call find_mcp_tools and search the actual catalog.' The exclusion is unambiguous, leaving nothing to inference about tool routing.

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