SORACOM Data Reader MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves storage usage (e.g., usage amount, file count), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, or side effects. It adds some context by specifying what information is returned, but lacks details on response format or potential errors.

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, with the main purpose stated first, followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. However, the Japanese text might require translation for some agents, slightly affecting clarity.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return content adequately. However, it lacks usage guidelines and detailed behavioral context, which are minor gaps for a simple read tool.

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 description adds meaningful semantics for the single parameter 'scope' by explaining it as 'スコープ（private または operators/{operator_id}）' (scope: private or operators/{operator_id}), which clarifies its purpose and possible values. Since schema description coverage is 0% and there's only one parameter, this adequately compensates, though it doesn't detail default behavior or constraints beyond the listed options.

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: 'Harvest Filesのストレージ使用状況を取得します' (Get Harvest Files storage usage status). It specifies the verb '取得します' (get) and resource 'ストレージ使用状況' (storage usage status), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_harvest_files' or 'get_harvest_data', which might also retrieve Harvest-related information.

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 sibling tools like 'list_harvest_files' or 'get_harvest_data', nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers for usage. The agent must infer usage based on the purpose alone.

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