cloudwright-mcp

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 behavioral traits: it calls an LLM with API costs proportional to history length, persists updated session state, and mentions error handling for invalid session IDs. However, it doesn't specify rate limits, authentication requirements, or detailed error scenarios beyond the session_id case.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized, with clear sections for purpose, return values, usage guidelines, and behavior. Every sentence adds value, though the return value explanation could be slightly more concise. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first.

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 with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains the return structure, usage context, behavioral implications, and distinguishes from alternatives. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description compensates by detailing the return format.

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 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions the message can include various types of content but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('send a message', 'get a response') and resources ('existing conversation session'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like chat_create_session (which initiates sessions) and design_architecture/modify_architecture (which are for single-shot calls). It explicitly identifies the target resource and action.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Every turn after chat_create_session') and when not to use it ('For zero-state single-shot calls use design_architecture / modify_architecture instead'). It clearly distinguishes between multi-turn conversation contexts and alternative single-shot scenarios.

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