MCP cldkctl Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description reveals nothing about the tool's behavior: it doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, what format the output takes, whether it's paginated (despite having a 'page' parameter), or any side effects. The phrase 'Call the... endpoint' is completely generic and adds zero behavioral context.

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 technically concise (one sentence), this is a case of under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single sentence 'Call the cldkctl_registry_list endpoint' wastes its opportunity to convey meaningful information, essentially repeating the tool name. Good conciseness eliminates waste while communicating value; this eliminates value while being brief.

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 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool does, when to use it, what behavior to expect, or what the output contains. The agent would have to guess based on the tool name alone. Given the complexity implied by the sibling tools (registry management in a cloud/k8s environment), this description provides virtually no useful context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('project-id' and 'page') having clear descriptions in the schema. The description adds absolutely no additional information about parameters beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description, which applies here.

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_list endpoint' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name with 'Call the' prefix. It doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., list registries, containers, or artifacts), what resource it operates on, or what verb it performs beyond the generic 'call'. While the name suggests it lists something related to a registry, the description adds no clarifying information.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the many sibling tools (e.g., cldkctl_registry_detail, cldkctl_registry_repositories, cldkctl_registry_artifact_tags), the agent has no indication whether this tool lists registries themselves, repositories within registries, or some other registry-related entities. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are mentioned.

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