MCP cldkctl Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Call the cldkctl_auth endpoint' reveals nothing about what the tool actually does behaviorally - whether it authenticates users, validates tokens, returns session information, has side effects, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. It's completely inadequate for understanding the tool's behavior.

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?

While the description is extremely concise (one sentence), it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The single sentence 'Call the cldkctl_auth endpoint' doesn't provide meaningful information about the tool's purpose or usage. Conciseness should not come at the cost of essential information.

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 an authentication tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. Authentication tools typically have important behavioral characteristics (permissions required, side effects, return values) that need explanation. The description fails to provide any meaningful context about what this tool does, how it behaves, or what it returns.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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 'Call the cldkctl_auth endpoint' is tautological - it essentially restates the tool name. It doesn't specify what the endpoint does (e.g., authenticate, validate tokens, manage auth sessions) or what resource it operates on. While the name suggests authentication, the description fails to clarify the specific action or purpose beyond invoking an endpoint.

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. There's a sibling tool named 'auth' that likely serves a related purpose, but the description doesn't differentiate between them. No context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or when this specific authentication endpoint should be called is provided.

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