Kloudy

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety bar is covered; the description still adds value by spelling out the negative behaviors ('does not install, connect, call or run tools') and the return payload (name, source, link, capability tags, heuristic score). Useful beyond the annotations, though it doesn't mention limits or failure modes.

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 tightly packed sentences that lead with the purpose, then returns, then safety, then mode routing. No filler, though the trailing mode sentence slightly duplicates the schema enum.

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 compensates by naming the returned fields and the five-candidate cap, and annotations carry the safety profile. The sibling tool relationship and any rate-limit or empty-result behavior are still undocumented, leaving a small 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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the enum values of operation. The description's partial restatement of ask/introduce adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find public MCP servers, tools and SDKs') plus the input mode ('task keywords'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling kloudy_connect_card, which is the one gap keeping it below a 5.

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 clear context for the tool and routes between its internal modes ('Use ask for a short Kloudy setup request, or introduce for a short description'). It offers no when-not-to-use condition and never mentions the sibling tool kloudy_connect_card, so routing between tools is left 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?

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?

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.