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 completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what the scan entails (e.g., security, performance), potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the bare statement of calling an endpoint.

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 concise. A single sentence like 'Call the cldkctl_registry_artifact_scan endpoint' wastes its opportunity to convey purpose or usage. It's front-loaded only in the trivial sense that there's nothing else, but it fails to provide any meaningful information, making it inefficient.

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 implied by the tool name (involving registry artifacts and scanning), no annotations, no output schema, and a description that adds no value beyond the name, this description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, behavioral traits, or output expectations, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'artifact_id' documented as 'Artifact ID' in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about this parameter (e.g., format, source, or examples). According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score 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_registry_artifact_scan endpoint' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name with 'Call the' and 'endpoint' added. It provides no information about what the tool actually does (e.g., scanning an artifact for vulnerabilities, checking compliance, etc.), nor does it distinguish this tool from its many sibling tools in the registry category like 'cldkctl_registry_artifact_detail' or 'cldkctl_registry_artifact_stop_scan'.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools (e.g., whether this initiates a scan vs. checking scan status), leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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