cloudwright-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does an excellent job disclosing behavioral traits. It explains the tool is 'Pure computation — no LLM, no network. Does not touch cloud.' and details what types of issues it detects (errors vs warnings with specific examples). However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics like execution time or resource requirements.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections: purpose statement, output format, error/warning categorization, usage guidelines, and behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted text, and key information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description provides excellent context. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, how to interpret results (errors vs warnings with examples), when to use it versus alternatives, and its behavioral characteristics. With output schema handling return format details, the description focuses on the right contextual information.

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%, providing a solid baseline. The description doesn't add significant parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema's description ('Runs 10 anti-pattern checks covering encryption, redundancy, load balancing, auth presence, and resource sizing.'), which the schema already covers adequately. The description focuses more on output behavior than input details.

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 ('lint an architecture for anti-patterns and best-practice violations') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly contrasting with 'security_scan'. It identifies the resource ('architecture') and the specific type of analysis performed.

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 `security_scan`: lint is about **architectural hygiene** (is this a sane shape?). security_scan is about **threat exposure** (can an attacker reach X?). Use both for comprehensive review.' This directly addresses sibling tool differentiation with clear context for each.

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