MCP cldkctl Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Call the endpoint', which implies an API interaction but doesn't reveal whether it's a read or write operation, what data it returns, or any behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication needs. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single sentence 'Call the cldkctl_voucher_trial_claimed_list endpoint', which is concise but under-specified. It wastes no words, yet it fails to provide meaningful content, making it more of a placeholder than a helpful description. This earns a middle score as it's structurally simple but lacks substance.

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 complexity (implied by the name suggesting a list operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, or what it returns, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and invoke it correctly in context with sibling tools.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't add any parameter information, which is acceptable since there are no parameters to explain. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter semantics completely.

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_voucher_trial_claimed_list endpoint' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name without explaining what it does. It mentions 'call' as a generic verb but doesn't specify the action (e.g., list, retrieve) or the resource (e.g., claimed trial vouchers). Compared to sibling tools like 'cldkctl_voucher_claimed_list' or 'cldkctl_voucher_claim', it fails to distinguish its 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 any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no information to decide between this and similar tools like 'cldkctl_voucher_claimed_list' or other voucher-related tools in the sibling list.

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