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 adds context beyond the input schema by detailing the return format (one entry per service with slug, name, category, tiers) and explicitly stating behavioral traits: 'Pure lookup from the bundled service registry — no LLM, no network, no cloud access,' which clarifies it's a local, static operation without external dependencies or processing.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place. It starts with the core purpose, details the return values, explains usage, and ends with behavioral context, all in a concise, structured manner without wasted words.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects), high schema coverage (100%), and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete enough. It adds necessary behavioral context and usage guidance, compensating for the lack of annotations and ensuring the agent can select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, providing details on the 'provider' parameter (default, description, examples). The description does not add meaning beyond this, as it only mentions 'given provider' without further elaboration. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 ('List all cloud services') and resources ('supported for a given provider'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like catalog_search or analyze_blast_radius. It explicitly mentions what the tool returns (slug, name, category, tiers) and its use case (discovering valid service keys for ArchSpecs).

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 clear context on when to use this tool ('Use this to discover valid `service:` keys when hand-authoring ArchSpecs or mapping requirements to services'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools. The guidance is practical but lacks explicit exclusions.

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