mcp-cloudron

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 effectively describes key behaviors: it performs a pre-flight check (F36) with a storage requirement (5GB minimum), and it returns a task ID for progress tracking. This covers safety and operational aspects well, though it could mention potential impacts like system load or backup size limits.

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, followed by essential details (pre-flight check, storage requirement, task ID usage). Every sentence adds critical information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity (a backup operation with pre-flight checks), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does, prerequisites, and how to handle the output (track via cloudron_task_status). A minor gap is the lack of details on error conditions or backup retention, but it covers the essentials effectively.

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 adds value by explaining the tool's behavior (pre-flight check, task ID return) beyond the schema, justifying a score above the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Create a new backup') and resource ('Cloudron instance'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like cloudron_list_backups (which lists backups) and cloudron_task_status (which tracks progress). It uses precise verbs and identifies the exact target.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool (for creating backups) and when not to use it (by mentioning prerequisites like the F36 pre-flight storage check requiring 5GB minimum). It also provides a clear alternative for tracking progress via cloudron_task_status, directly naming the sibling tool.

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