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: 'Pure computation — no LLM, no network, no API costs. Uses the same offline catalog as `estimate_cost`. Does not deploy.' This covers computational nature, cost implications, data source, and non-deployment behavior, though it doesn't mention error handling or performance characteristics.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose, follows with usage guidelines and behavioral details, and uses clear section headings ('When to use vs `compare_providers`', 'Behavior:'). Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (cost comparison across providers), the description is complete. It explains the purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and output format ('Returns one numeric cost summary per provider'). With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values, and the 100% schema coverage handles parameters adequately. The description fills gaps left by the absence of annotations.

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 schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema—it mentions 'ArchSpec to cost across providers' and 'cloud providers to compare pricing across,' which are already covered in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Compare the monthly cost totals of an architecture across cloud providers.' It specifies the verb ('compare'), resource ('monthly cost totals'), and scope ('across cloud providers'), and explicitly distinguishes it from its sibling 'compare_providers' by noting this tool returns only cost numbers versus full alternative architectures.

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 versus alternatives. It states: 'Use this for cost-focused provider selection' and explains that 'compare_providers' returns full alternative architectures, while this tool returns only cost numbers. It also advises on workflow: 'If you want both the re-drawn architecture and its bill, call `compare_providers` first, then `estimate_cost` on each returned spec — or call both in parallel.'

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