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 and does so effectively. It discloses key behavioral traits: deterministic nature ('same spec + tier yields same result'), computational characteristics ('Pure computation — no LLM, no network, no API costs. Works offline'), and safety profile ('Does not deploy or touch cloud resources'). This provides comprehensive behavioral context beyond what would be in annotations.

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. It begins with the core purpose, then covers deterministic nature, usage guidelines, and behavioral characteristics in logical progression. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, and it's front-loaded with the most important 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 the tool's complexity (architecture cost estimation) and lack of output schema, the description does an excellent job explaining what the tool returns ('structured estimate with per-component breakdown, total monthly cost, data-transfer costs, and currency'). However, without an output schema, some details about the return structure format could be more explicit, preventing a perfect score.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add significant meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions, though it does provide context about the pricing catalog ('bundled SQLite catalog') and formula dispatch. This meets the baseline 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 verb ('estimate') and resource ('monthly cloud bill for an architecture spec'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's for 'one architecture on one provider+tier combination' versus compare_provider_costs and compare_providers which handle multi-provider comparisons.

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 ('You need the numeric bill for one architecture on one provider+tier combination') and when to use alternatives ('For multi-provider comparison of just the costs, use `compare_provider_costs`. For side-by-side architecture + cost comparison across providers, use `compare_providers` + this tool').

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