MCP cldkctl Server

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 but fails to do so. It does not indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, potential side effects, or response format (e.g., JSON structure). This omission leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 overly concise to the point of under-specification—it consists of a single, redundant sentence that does not convey useful information. While brief, it lacks necessary detail, making it inefficient rather than appropriately concise.

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 a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a description that fails to explain purpose, usage, or behavior, the description is completely inadequate. It does not compensate for the lack of structured data, leaving the agent without sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'project_id' clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how the project ID relates to CRD retrieval or format examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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_get_crd endpoint' is tautological—it restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. While 'get_crd' suggests retrieving a Custom Resource Definition (CRD), the description lacks specificity about what resource is fetched (e.g., CRD details) and does not differentiate it from sibling tools like 'cldkctl_get_custom_resources' or 'cldkctl_get_resource_v1', leaving the purpose vague.

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 does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after creating a CRD), or exclusions, making it impossible for an agent to determine appropriate usage without external knowledge.

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