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 offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, whether it's synchronous or asynchronous, what happens to partial scan results, or what the typical response looks like. For a tool that appears to control scanning processes, this lack of behavioral context is critical.

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 extremely concise at just 7 words. While it's under-specified in terms of content, it doesn't waste words or have structural issues. Every word directly relates to identifying the endpoint, though it fails to provide meaningful operational context.

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 apparent function (stopping artifact scans in a container registry), the description is completely inadequate. With no annotations, no output schema, and a description that merely names the endpoint, there's insufficient information for an AI agent to understand when and how to use this tool effectively. The description doesn't compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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 a single parameter 'artifact_id' documented as 'Artifact ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information 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_stop_scan endpoint' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name in slightly different words. It doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., 'Stop an ongoing security scan of a container registry artifact'). While 'stop_scan' in the name implies stopping a scan, the description fails to articulate the verb+resource combination clearly.

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. Given the sibling tools include 'cldkctl_registry_artifact_scan' (likely for starting scans) and 'cldkctl_registry_artifact_detail' (for viewing artifact details), there's no indication of prerequisites, timing constraints, or when this tool is appropriate versus other registry artifact operations.

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