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. It fails to describe any behavioral traits: it doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only check or has side effects, what permissions are required, what the output contains (e.g., warnings, dependencies), or any rate limits. The description adds no value beyond the name.

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 (one sentence), the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It wastes its single sentence restating the tool name without adding substantive content. The structure doesn't front-load useful information, failing to earn its place as a helpful description.

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 likely critical role in project deletion (inferred from name and siblings), the description is completely inadequate. With no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, it fails to explain what the check involves, what it returns, or why it's needed. For a tool that appears to be a safety check before destructive operations, this lack of context is severe.

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 meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter 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_check_before_delete_project endpoint' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal added meaning. It vaguely suggests an action related to deletion checking but doesn't specify what the check entails (e.g., validation, dependency analysis, safety assessment). While it includes a verb ('Call'), the resource is unclear beyond the endpoint name itself.

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. The sibling list includes 'cldkctl_delete_project', suggesting this might be a pre-deletion validation step, but the description doesn't explicitly state this relationship or provide prerequisites. There's no mention of when-not-to-use or specific contexts for invocation.

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