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 no information about the tool's behavior. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read operation, what data it returns, potential side effects, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description is completely silent on behavioral traits.

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 not appropriately concise because it's under-specified—it wastes its single sentence on a tautological statement that provides no useful information. A truly concise description would efficiently convey purpose or usage, but this fails to do so, making it ineffective rather than succinct.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, what behavior to expect, or what it returns. For a tool that likely retrieves details about a registry (inferred from the name), this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it 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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'registry_id' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or context. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, 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_registry_detail endpoint' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name with 'call' and 'endpoint' added. It doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieve registry details, view configuration, get metadata). The name suggests it provides details about a registry, but the description fails to articulate this purpose 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. It doesn't mention what 'registry_detail' entails compared to other registry-related tools like 'cldkctl_registry_list', 'cldkctl_registry_update', or 'cldkctl_registry_overview', nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for invocation.

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