sacloud-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a creation operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is a paid service, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The description only covers basic functionality without important operational 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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and efficiently presents information. The Japanese purpose statement is concise, though the detailed parameter explanations are necessary given the lack of schema descriptions. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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 creation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides good parameter documentation and return format details. However, it lacks important context about authentication requirements, error conditions, cost implications, or integration with sibling tools like 'get_router_list' or 'delete_router'.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter information. It explains all 5 parameters with constraints (e.g., '1-64文字' for name length, '28または27' for network_mask_len options, '100、500、または1000 Mbps' for bandwidth), optional status, and character limits. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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でルータを作成します' (creates a router using Sakura Cloud API). It specifies the verb ('作成します' - creates) and resource ('ルータ' - router). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_switch' or 'create_bridge' 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling tools include 'create_switch', 'create_bridge', and 'delete_router', the description offers no context about when a router is appropriate versus other network components or when deletion might be needed.

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