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 this is a retrieval operation (取得します), implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, error conditions, or whether this lists all interfaces or requires specific permissions. The return format is described, but operational behavior is minimally covered.

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 purpose statement is clear, but the detailed return format (which belongs in an output schema) occupies most of the text. While helpful, this information could be more efficiently presented if an output schema existed. The Args/Returns sections are organized but verbose for a description field.

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, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description provides basic purpose and parameter explanation plus detailed return format. However, for a read operation with many sibling tools, it lacks context about when to use it, behavioral constraints, and differentiation from alternatives. The return format detail partially compensates for 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 and only 1 parameter, the description compensates well by explaining the 'zone' parameter in Japanese: '取得対象のゾーン' (target zone for retrieval). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare 'zone' title. However, it doesn't provide format examples or enumeration of possible zone 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からネットワークインターフェース一覧を取得します' (retrieves network interface list from Sakura Cloud API). It specifies the verb (取得します/retrieves) and resource (ネットワークインターフェース一覧/network interface list), but 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or comparison with sibling tools like get_server_list (which might include interface information) or get_switch_list. Only the basic function is stated without usage context.

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