MCP cldkctl Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description reveals nothing about the tool's behavior: it doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are required, what format the response takes, whether there are rate limits, or any other behavioral characteristics. This is a critical gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 technically concise (one sentence), it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The single sentence 'Call the cldkctl_billing_history endpoint' wastes its opportunity to convey meaningful information, making it an example of poor conciseness through omission rather than good conciseness through precision.

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?

The description is completely inadequate given the context. With no annotations, no output schema, and a generic description that adds minimal value beyond the tool name, this fails to provide the necessary context for effective tool use. The agent would struggle to understand when, why, or how to invoke this tool versus the many billing-related alternatives.

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 all three parameters (project_id, start, end) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without parameter details 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_history endpoint' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal added meaning. It vaguely suggests an API call but doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieve billing history records). While the name implies billing history functionality, the description fails to articulate the specific action or resource involved.

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 are multiple sibling billing-related tools (e.g., cldkctl_billing_daily_cost, cldkctl_billing_monthly_cost, cldkctl_payment_history), but the description offers no differentiation, prerequisites, or context for selection. This leaves the agent without any usage direction.

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