sacloud-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool retrieves data (implied read-only) and describes the return format, but lacks details on authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's safe for repeated use. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first followed by return details. The Japanese text is concise, and the English translation is clear, though the mix of languages might slightly affect readability for non-Japanese speakers.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It explains the purpose and return format but lacks parameter documentation and behavioral context like authentication or error handling. This is adequate but has clear gaps for a tool with no structured data support.

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 does not mention the 'site_id' parameter at all, despite it being required and having 0% schema description coverage. However, since there is only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the score is reduced to 3 because the description fails to add any semantic context for the parameter, leaving it entirely undocumented.

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: retrieving a list of object storage access keys from the Sakura Cloud API. It specifies the resource ('object storage access keys') and the action ('retrieve'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_objectstorage_bucket_list' or 'get_objectstorage_site_list', which handle 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. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as authentication or API access, or specify scenarios where this tool is appropriate compared to other object storage-related tools in the sibling list.

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