Get Cloudeval Capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as return format or error cases, but the output schema exists and no contradictions are present.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the verb, resource, and purpose with no filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 full parameter documentation in the schema, an output schema present, and annotations conveying the read-only nature, the description supplies the remaining contextual purpose ('agent planning'). Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all three optional parameters. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the schema carries the burden, which is acceptable.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('Cloudeval CLI and MCP capability metadata'), and adds the purpose 'for agent planning.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like config_show or status, which address different concerns.

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 'for agent planning' provides clear context on when this tool is relevant. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the intended usage is evident and distinct from other siblings.

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