MCP cldkctl Server

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

No annotations are provided, and the description offers zero behavioral information. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it returns structured data, or any error conditions. The description fails to disclose any behavioral traits beyond the minimal implication of a 'get' operation.

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 brief, it's under-specified rather than appropriately concise. The single sentence 'Call the cldkctl_get_vm_storage_class endpoint' doesn't provide meaningful information - it's essentially redundant with the tool name. This isn't effective conciseness but rather insufficient content.

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 for a tool with no annotations and no output schema. It provides no information about what the tool returns, what 'storage class' means in this context, or how the result should be interpreted. For a tool that presumably retrieves technical configuration data, this level of documentation is insufficient.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'project_id' clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no 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_get_vm_storage_class endpoint' is tautological - it essentially restates the tool name with 'Call the' prefix. It doesn't explain what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieves storage class information for VMs), nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like 'cldkctl_get_vm' or 'cldkctl_get_vm_flavor'.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to VMs and storage, the description offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or how this differs from other 'get' operations in the system.

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