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 retrieves data (implying read-only) and outlines the return structure, but lacks critical behavioral details: authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, pagination, or whether it's idempotent. For a billing tool with no annotations, 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 sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. No extraneous information is included. However, the mix of Japanese and English in the structure slightly affects readability.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and return structure but lacks sufficient context for safe and effective use. It covers the essentials (what it does and what it returns) but misses operational details like authentication, error cases, and sibling tool differentiation, which are important for a billing API tool.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds minimal semantics: it explains 'account_id' as 'プロジェクトID（アカウントID）' (project ID/account ID), clarifying its purpose. However, it does not detail format constraints, examples, or validation rules. With only one parameter, this partial explanation meets baseline expectations.

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から指定プロジェクトIDの請求一覧を取得します' (retrieves billing list from Sakura Cloud API for a specified project ID). It specifies the verb '取得します' (retrieves) and resource '請求一覧' (billing list), but does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'get_bill_list_by_month', which appears to be a similar billing-related tool.

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 mentions retrieving billing list for a project ID but does not specify scope (e.g., all bills vs. filtered), prerequisites, or contrast with 'get_bill_list_by_month'. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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