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, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or whether the operation is idempotent. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 and appropriately sized. It begins with the core purpose, then clearly sections Args and Returns with bullet-point details. The Japanese text is concise, and every sentence serves a purpose, though the Returns section could be more streamlined given there's no 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?

For a simple read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action, parameter meaning, and return structure. However, without annotations and with multiple similar list-retrieval siblings, it lacks context about authentication, error handling, and differentiation from alternatives that would make it fully complete.

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 provides clear parameter semantics despite 0% schema description coverage. It explains that 'zone' is '取得対象のゾーン' (the target zone for retrieval), which adds meaningful context not present in the schema. With only one parameter, this is sufficient to understand its purpose, though it doesn't specify zone format or valid values.

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からブリッジ一覧を取得します' (retrieves bridge list from Sakura Cloud API). It specifies the verb '取得します' (retrieves) and resource 'ブリッジ一覧' (bridge list), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_switch_list' or 'get_router_list' 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. There are multiple list-retrieval siblings (get_switch_list, get_router_list, get_server_list, etc.), but no indication of when bridges specifically are needed versus other network components. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to other tools are mentioned.

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