sacloud-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval operation ('取得します') which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't explicitly confirm safety, permissions required, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what 'JSONレスポンス' contains. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first states what the tool does, the second documents the parameter, and the third describes the return format. No redundant information is present.

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?

For a read operation with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the JSON response contains, how results are structured, whether there are limitations or pagination, or error scenarios. The agent lacks sufficient context to properly interpret results or handle edge cases.

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 includes an Args section that documents the single parameter 'zone' with a brief Japanese explanation ('取得対象のゾーン' - target zone for retrieval). With 0% schema description coverage, this adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain zone format, valid values, or provide examples, leaving the parameter only partially documented.

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' - get/retrieve) and resource ('VPNルータ一覧' - VPN router list) from a specific API ('さくらのクラウドAPI'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_router_list' by specifying VPN routers specifically. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools like 'get_router_list' or 'get_server_list' beyond the resource type.

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 prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or compare with similar sibling tools like 'get_router_list' or 'get_vpn_monitor'. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and description.

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