cloudscope-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It establishes the read-only query nature via 'Find' and clarifies granularity ('individual' resources). However, it lacks details on return structure, pagination behavior, or cost calculation methodology that the absence of an output schema makes necessary.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Every element ('N', 'most expensive', 'individual', 'Azure', 'time period') earns its place by conveying essential scope and constraints.

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?

Adequate for a simple three-parameter query tool with complete schema documentation. However, the absence of an output schema and annotations leaves gaps regarding return value structure, safety classifications (read-only confirmation), and error conditions that a complete description should address.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description conceptually maps 'N' to the limit parameter and 'time period' to days, but does not add syntax, format constraints, or parameter relationships beyond what the schema already documents.

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 provides a specific verb ('Find'), resource ('Azure resources'), and scope ('most expensive', 'individual'). The term 'individual' helps distinguish this from aggregate siblings like get_cost_summary, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by the specific functional description (finding expensive resources vs. checking budgets or forecasting), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_recommendations or detect_anomalies for cost optimization tasks.

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