Spotinst MCP Server

Does 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 states the tool retrieves 'suggestions,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires specific permissions, has rate limits, returns real-time or historical data, or what the output format entails. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a clear 'Args:' section with parameter details. There's minimal waste, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise (e.g., combining the default note for 'account_id' into one line). Overall, it's efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, rate limits) and doesn't explain return values—though the output schema mitigates this last point. For a tool with no annotations, it should do more to disclose operational traits, leaving room for improvement.

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 adds meaning by explaining 'cluster_id' as 'The Ocean cluster ID (e.g. o-abc12345)', 'namespace' as 'Optional namespace to filter suggestions', and 'account_id' with a default value note. However, it doesn't fully cover all three parameters' semantics—e.g., what 'namespace' refers to (Kubernetes? AWS?) or valid formats for 'account_id'. The description provides basic context but leaves some ambiguity.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get right-sizing resource suggestions for workloads in an AWS Ocean cluster.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('right-sizing resource suggestions'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on optimization recommendations rather than cluster data, costs, or instance types. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like 'get_cluster_costs' which might overlap in optimization context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active Ocean cluster), exclusions (e.g., not for non-AWS clusters), or comparisons to siblings like 'get_allowed_instance_types' or 'get_cluster_costs' that might relate to resource optimization. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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