cloudwright-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a 'pure lookup from the bundled SQLite catalog' (indicating read-only, local operation), 'no LLM, no network' (clarifying data source and limitations), and 'prices reflect catalog snapshot date' with reference to a refresh command (important context about data freshness). It doesn't mention error handling or performance characteristics, but covers essential operational context.

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 perfectly structured and concise: purpose statement first, return values second, filter semantics third, usage guidelines fourth, and behavioral details last. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and information is front-loaded appropriately for quick scanning.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage, behavior, and operational constraints. With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail, and it successfully provides all necessary context for an agent to use this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by mentioning 'All filters combine with AND semantics' which clarifies how multiple parameters interact, but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what's already well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't compensate for any gaps because there are none in the schema.

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 with specific verbs ('Search') and resources ('cloud instance catalog'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on instance catalog search rather than architecture design, cost estimation, or chat functions. It explicitly mentions what it returns (instance types with specific attributes), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 includes an explicit 'When to use' section with three specific scenarios: right-sizing workloads, finding cheapest instances meeting hardware requirements, and discovering equivalents across families. This provides clear guidance on when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives, though it doesn't name specific sibling tools as alternatives.

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