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 the tool returns a dictionary mapping item names to URLs, which is basic behavioral information. However, it doesn't disclose important traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether the data is cached/fresh. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose in Japanese, one clarifying the return type. Both sentences earn their place. However, the structure could be slightly improved by front-loading the English translation or combining the two sentences more seamlessly.

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 has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic completeness: it states what the tool does and the return format. However, it lacks context about when to use it versus sibling tools, doesn't explain the scope of the manual (e.g., which API version), and doesn't mention behavioral aspects like error handling. For a simple read-only tool, this is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema is fully described). With no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's nothing missing.

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: 'さくらのクラウドのAPIマニュアルの目次を項目名と対応するurlを辞書型で返します' (returns the table of contents of the Sakura Cloud API manual as a dictionary mapping item names to URLs). It specifies the verb '返します' (returns) and resource 'APIマニュアルの目次' (API manual table of contents), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_manual_outline' or 'read_api_manual', which appear related.

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. There are several sibling tools that seem related to manuals (get_manual_outline, read_api_manual, read_manual, read_object_storage_api_manual), but the description doesn't explain how this tool differs from them or when it should be preferred.

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