cloudwright-mcp

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: 'Pure computation — no LLM, no network. Evaluates the spec statically against 30+ rules. Does not access or modify any cloud resources.' This clearly communicates that it's a safe, read-only analysis tool with no external dependencies.

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: first states what it does, second describes the return format, third provides usage guidelines with alternatives, and fourth explains behavioral characteristics. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 both detailed input schema (100% coverage) and output schema, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral characteristics, and distinguishes from alternatives. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add significant meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions, though it does provide context about what gets validated ('declared components, connections, and provider settings') and mentions '30+ rules' which gives additional insight into the validation scope.

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: 'Validate an architecture against compliance frameworks.' It specifies the verb ('validate') and resource ('architecture against compliance frameworks'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'security_scan' by noting that tool is for framework-agnostic anti-pattern detection.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'When you have a proposed architecture and need to know whether it satisfies HIPAA / PCI-DSS / SOC 2 / FedRAMP / GDPR before proceeding.' It also provides a clear alternative: 'Use `security_scan` for anti-pattern detection (weak auth, public buckets, etc.) which is framework-agnostic.'

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