sdcloud_list_nat_policy_hierarchy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions it lists the hierarchy and contrasts with firewall policies. It fails to state whether it is read-only, what the return structure is, or any required permissions. This is insufficient for a tool with no 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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the action and key differentiator. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite having 6 parameters for pagination, filtering, and sorting, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to explain what the hierarchy looks like, how results are structured, or how to navigate the response. More context is needed for a complex list hierarchy operation.

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 high coverage (83%) and describes all parameters well. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, so it meets the baseline for high coverage without needing extra parameter info.

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 it lists a NAT policy's rule hierarchy, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from firewall policies by noting the lack of global/zone scope segment, which differentiates it from its sibling sdcloud_list_firewall_policy_hierarchy.

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 implicitly tells when to use (listing NAT policy rule hierarchy) and contrasts with firewall policies. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or mention prerequisites like the existence of a NAT policy.

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