MCP cldkctl Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to indicate whether this is a read or write operation, potential side effects (e.g., if it modifies data), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. The vague phrase 'Call the endpoint' adds no behavioral context, leaving the agent with no safety or operational guidance.

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 concise with one sentence, the description is under-specified and fails to convey essential information. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity; this text is too brief to be helpful, making it inefficient rather than appropriately sized. It does not front-load key details about the tool's function.

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 complexity of billing tools and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., cost data format), how it behaves, or when to use it, leaving critical gaps for agent understanding. For a tool with potential financial implications, this minimal description is inadequate.

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%, with the single parameter 'project_id' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. According to rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without param info 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_billing_daily_cost endpoint' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name with 'Call' added. It fails to specify what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieve daily billing costs for a project), distinguish it from siblings like 'cldkctl_billing_monthly_cost', or clarify the resource involved. This provides no meaningful purpose information beyond the name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools (e.g., 'cldkctl_billing_monthly_cost' for monthly costs or 'cldkctl_billing_history' for historical data), prerequisites like authentication, or specific contexts for daily cost retrieval. The description offers zero usage instructions.

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