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 mentions the API source and return format, but lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, error handling, or what happens if no switches exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 with a clear purpose statement followed by structured Args and Returns sections. However, the Returns section is overly detailed with nested field explanations that might be better suited for an output schema. The front-loaded purpose is good, but some information could be more efficiently organized.

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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides adequate parameter documentation and detailed return format explanation. However, it lacks behavioral context (authentication, errors, etc.) and doesn't reference sibling tools. For a simple read operation, it's minimally complete but could be more comprehensive.

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 explicit parameter documentation in the Args section, detailing that 'zone' is the target zone for retrieval. With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, this compensates well by explaining the parameter's purpose and meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify 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 tool's purpose: 'さくらのクラウドAPIからスイッチ一覧を取得します' (Get switch list from Sakura Cloud API). It specifies the verb ('取得します' - get) and resource ('スイッチ一覧' - switch list), but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like get_router_list or get_bridge_list, which have similar list-retrieval patterns.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons with sibling tools like get_switch (singular) if it existed. It simply states what the tool does without usage context.

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