sacloud-mcp

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. It states the tool creates a bridge but lacks critical details: it doesn't mention permissions required, whether this is a mutating operation (implied but not explicit), rate limits, costs, or error conditions. The Returns section describes the output format, which is helpful but doesn't cover 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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and uses minimal sentences. The Japanese purpose statement is direct, and the parameter documentation is organized efficiently, though the Returns section is somewhat detailed for a description (better suited to an output schema).

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 (a creation operation with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return format, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, auth needs) and usage guidelines, which are important for a mutation tool in a cloud API 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?

The description includes an Args section that documents all three parameters (zone, name, description) with types and optionality, adding meaningful semantics beyond the input schema (which has 0% description coverage). It clarifies that 'description' is optional and provides context for 'zone' as the target zone, though it could elaborate on format or constraints (e.g., valid zones).

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'さくらのクラウドAPIでブリッジを作成します' (creates a bridge using Sakura Cloud API). It specifies the verb (作成します/create) and resource (ブリッジ/bridge), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_router' or 'create_switch' beyond the resource type.

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 prerequisites, context (e.g., networking setup), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_router' or 'create_switch', leaving the agent to infer usage based on the resource name alone.

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