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 states the tool retrieves data (a read operation) and describes the return format in detail, which is helpful. However, it lacks information on potential side effects, error conditions, rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, but the detailed return format listing (14 items) is extensive and could be more concise. While the return details are valuable, they might be better summarized or structured to avoid verbosity. The mix of Japanese and English in the return fields also adds minor complexity.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It clearly explains what the tool does and provides a detailed return format, which compensates for the lack of output schema. However, it misses behavioral context (e.g., error handling, auth needs) and usage guidelines, making it adequate but not fully comprehensive for an API call tool.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly omits parameter details, focusing instead on the return value. This aligns with the baseline expectation for tools without parameters, as the schema fully handles the input specification.

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からオブジェクトストレージのサイト一覧を取得します' (Get object storage site list from Sakura Cloud API). It specifies the verb '取得します' (get/retrieve) and the resource 'オブジェクトストレージのサイト一覧' (object storage site list), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_objectstorage_accesskey_list' or 'get_objectstorage_bucket_list', which target different resources within the same API.

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 any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons with sibling tools (e.g., 'get_objectstorage_accesskey_list' or 'get_objectstorage_bucket_list'). The absence of such information leaves the agent without explicit direction on tool selection.

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