cloudwright-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: 'Pure computation — no LLM, no network. Read-only. Does not modify either spec.' This clearly indicates it's a safe, local operation without side effects, addressing safety and operational context. However, it doesn't mention performance aspects like execution time or resource usage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by details on output, usage guidelines, and behavior. Each sentence earns its place by adding distinct value: purpose, output details, usage context, and behavioral traits, with zero redundant information.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, usage, behavior, and output structure. However, it could be more complete by explicitly mentioning the format of the structured delta (e.g., JSON structure) or error handling, which would help an agent fully understand the tool's operation without an output schema.

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%, with parameters 'old_spec_json' and 'new_spec_json' well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying the parameters represent architectural specs without providing additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the 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 with specific verbs ('diff two architecture specs') and resource ('architecture specs'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'compare_providers' or 'compare_provider_costs' by focusing on architectural change analysis rather than cost or provider comparisons. It explicitly mentions returning a structured change report with detailed components.

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: 'When you have two versions of a spec (before / after a proposed change) and need a reviewable diff for approval or ADR writing.' It distinguishes this from other tools by specifying the context of architectural version comparison, not general analysis or cost estimation.

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