sacloud-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval operation but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, pagination behavior, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation purpose.

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 (description, Args, Returns) and uses minimal sentences. The Japanese description is direct, and the parameter documentation is organized efficiently. No unnecessary information is included.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information but has significant gaps. It documents parameters well and describes the return structure, but lacks behavioral context (auth, errors, limits) and doesn't clarify the relationship with the sibling 'get_bill_list' tool. The return format documentation helps compensate for the missing output schema.

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 compensates well by documenting all 3 parameters in the Args section with clear Japanese explanations: account_id as project ID, year in YYYY format, and month in MM format. This provides essential semantic context that the schema lacks entirely.

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の特定年月の請求一覧を取得します' (Retrieves billing list for a specific month/year from Sakura Cloud API for a given project ID). It specifies the verb '取得します' (retrieves) and resource '請求一覧' (billing list). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'get_bill_list' (without month/year filtering), which could cause confusion.

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. While it mentions retrieving billing for a '特定年月' (specific month/year), it doesn't clarify when to use this versus the sibling 'get_bill_list' tool (which appears to be a more general billing list tool). No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are provided.

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