sacloud-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval operation, implying it's read-only, but doesn't explicitly confirm this or mention any other behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or pagination behavior. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 (Args, Returns) and uses bullet points for the return value details. It's appropriately sized - the main purpose statement is front-loaded, and the additional details are organized efficiently. The only minor improvement would be integrating the purpose statement more seamlessly with the parameter documentation.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains the purpose, documents the single parameter's meaning, and provides detailed return value information that substitutes for an output schema. For a straightforward retrieval tool, this is reasonably complete, though it could benefit from more 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 description provides excellent parameter semantics despite 0% schema description coverage. It clearly explains that 'zone' is the target zone for retrieval and documents the detailed return structure with specific fields like ID, Name, BandWidthMbps, etc. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions and provides meaningful context for both input and output.

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からルータ一覧を取得します' (retrieves router list from Sakura Cloud API). It specifies the verb '取得します' (retrieve) and resource 'ルータ一覧' (router list), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_router_monitor' or 'get_vpn_router_list', which prevents a perfect score.

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. There are several sibling tools related to routers (create_router, delete_router, get_router_monitor, get_vpn_router_list), but the description doesn't mention any of them or explain when this specific list retrieval is appropriate versus other router-related operations.

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