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 mentions the API source and return format (JSON response), but lacks critical information: authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, error handling, or whether this is a safe read-only operation. The description provides basic context but misses important operational details.

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 (main description, Args, Returns). It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first states what it does, the second documents the parameter, the third describes the return. No wasted words.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the basics: purpose, parameter, and return format. However, with no annotations and missing behavioral details (auth, pagination, errors), it's incomplete for reliable agent usage. The description does what's minimally required but leaves gaps.

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 explicitly documents the single 'zone' parameter in the Args section, explaining it's the target zone for retrieval. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't elaborate on 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 action ('取得します' - retrieve) and resource ('ロードバランサ一覧' - load balancer list) from a specific API ('さくらのクラウドAPI'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_loadbalancer' by being a read operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get_' tools that retrieve different resources.

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. While the description implies it's for retrieving load balancer lists, there's no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from other list-retrieval tools in the sibling set.

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