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 conversion to markdown and extraction of main content, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, what 'main content' means, or how the conversion process works. The description is insufficient for a tool that processes external content.

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 reasonably concise with three sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the tool's function, describing the parameter, and describing the return value. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. The Args/Returns formatting is clear though slightly verbose for a single parameter.

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 tool that fetches and processes external content with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, what 'main content' extraction entails, or the format/structure of the returned markdown. The agent lacks sufficient information to use this tool reliably.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that the 'url' parameter should be a Sakura Cloud manual URL with the specific format 'https://manual.sakura.ad.jp/cloud/~', which adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't provide examples, validation rules, or what happens with invalid URLs.

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: it takes a Sakura Cloud manual URL, converts it to markdown, and extracts the main content. It specifies the verb ('read'), resource ('manual'), and transformation process. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_api_manual' or 'get_manual_outline' beyond the URL source.

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 like 'read_api_manual' or 'get_manual_outline'. It mentions the specific URL format but doesn't explain why one would choose this tool over others for accessing Sakura Cloud documentation.

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