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 mentions the return format (Name and CreationDate fields) which is helpful, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, pagination behavior, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to use it correctly.

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 concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one describing the return format. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose first. Minor improvement could be adding a period after the first sentence for better formatting.

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 zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose and return format. However, for an API tool with no structured safety information, it should ideally mention that this is a read operation and any authentication requirements. The return format description is helpful but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of behavioral context.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and instead focuses on the return values. This is efficient and correct for a parameterless tool.

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' - retrieves) and resource ('オブジェクトストレージのバケット一覧' - object storage bucket list) from a specific API ('さくらのクラウドAPI'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on object storage buckets rather than servers, disks, routers, etc. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_objectstorage_accesskey_list or get_objectstorage_site_list which are related object storage 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, authentication requirements, or compare it to other object storage tools like get_objectstorage_accesskey_list or get_objectstorage_site_list. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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