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. While it states this is a read operation ('取得します' - get/retrieve), it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, pagination behavior, or whether the operation has side effects. The Returns section describes output structure but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like what happens with invalid project IDs or API failures.

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 but not optimally structured. The main purpose statement is clear, but the Args/Returns sections use a documentation-style format that duplicates what could be in structured schemas. The Japanese/English mixing creates some redundancy. However, every sentence adds value, and there's no fluff.

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 provides adequate coverage of what the tool does and what it returns. However, without annotations and with sibling tools that handle related financial data, it should ideally provide more context about when this specific coupon information is needed versus other billing tools.

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 for the single parameter, the description compensates well by explaining that 'account_id' represents the project ID ('プロジェクトID（アカウントID）'). This adds meaningful semantic context beyond what the bare schema provides, though it doesn't elaborate on format requirements or validation rules.

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のクーポン一覧を取得します' (Get coupon list from Sakura Cloud API for specified project ID). It specifies the verb ('取得します' - get/retrieve) and resource ('クーポン一覧' - coupon list), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_bill_list or get_price, which are related but distinct financial tools.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or compare it to sibling tools like get_bill_list or get_price that might provide related financial information. The only contextual clue is that it requires a project ID, but this is already in the parameter documentation.

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