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 returns backup details (ID, timestamp, size, app count, status), sorts results by timestamp (newest first), and implies a read-only operation without destructive effects. However, it lacks information on potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling, which are important for a tool interacting with a Cloudron instance.

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 highly concise and well-structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and return details, and the second specifies the sorting order. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it front-loaded and efficient for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It covers the purpose, output details, and sorting behavior. However, without annotations or an output schema, it could benefit from mentioning potential limitations (e.g., pagination, error cases) or authentication context, slightly reducing completeness for a Cloudron interaction tool.

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 appropriately focuses on output semantics, detailing what information is returned (backup details) and sorting behavior, which adds value beyond the empty schema. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description compensates by explaining the tool's output context.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all backups available on the Cloudron instance'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like cloudron_create_backup (creation) and cloudron_task_status (task monitoring), establishing a clear read-only listing function.

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 implies usage for retrieving backup information, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cloudron_check_storage (which might overlap in storage-related queries) or cloudron_get_status (which could include backup status). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context inferred rather than stated.

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