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 excels. It discloses key behavioral traits: 'Pure computation — no LLM, no network. Does not write files or deploy; the caller is responsible for persisting or applying the returned content.' This clarifies it's a local, non-destructive transformation tool with no side effects, which is crucial for agent decision-making.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence earns its place: the first states what it does, the second describes the return format, the third adds implementation specifics, and the last two provide usage and behavioral context. No wasted words, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 (transformation with multiple formats) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavior, return format, and implementation specifics. The only minor gap is lack of explicit error handling, but this is compensated by the clear behavioral transparency.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains that 'Terraform/CFN outputs use variables for sensitive values (no hardcoded credentials), include provider blocks with region configuration, and generate data sources for VPC/subnet discovery.' This provides valuable implementation details not in the schema, elevating the score.

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: 'Export an architecture spec to Terraform, CloudFormation, Mermaid, D2, or other formats.' It specifies the verb ('Export') and resource ('architecture spec'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'design_architecture' or 'modify_architecture' by focusing on conversion/export rather than creation or editing.

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 usage guidance: 'When to use: You have a finalized ArchSpec and need IaC code, a diagram, or an audit artifact. For multi-format export, call once per `format`.' This clearly states the prerequisite (finalized ArchSpec), the use cases (IaC, diagram, audit), and how to handle multiple formats, with no misleading information.

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