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 behaviors: 'Calls an LLM to resolve ambiguous service mappings where the static equivalence table is insufficient' (explaining the resolution mechanism) and 'Does not deploy' (clarifying it's a non-destructive analysis tool). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, error handling, or authentication needs, which could be useful for an agent.

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 concise, with each sentence earning its place. It front-loads the purpose, explains usage guidelines, and clarifies behavioral aspects without redundancy. The text is efficiently organized into clear sections (purpose, usage comparison, behavior).

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 (involving LLM calls and cross-provider mappings), the description is complete enough. It explains the tool's purpose, distinguishes it from siblings, and discloses key behaviors. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values, and the 100% schema coverage handles parameters adequately.

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 some context by mentioning '22 cross-cloud equivalence pairs' and the purpose of translation, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline 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 tool's purpose: 'Compare an architecture's service mapping across cloud providers' and 'Returns one translated ArchSpec per target provider, showing which services the original would become on each.' It specifies the verb (compare/translate), resource (architecture/service mapping), and output (translated ArchSpecs), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explaining what it returns versus alternatives.

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: 'When to use vs `compare_provider_costs`: This tool returns full alternative architectures (with components, connections, tiers). `compare_provider_costs` returns only numeric cost totals per provider — use that when you only care about the bill, not the shape.' This clearly delineates the use cases and names the alternative tool.

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