Alias cũ của cloud_packages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the alias/deprecation status, which is useful context, but discloses nothing about return shape or behavior. With annotations carrying the burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single short sentence with the alias status and the recommended alternative front-loaded. No filler, every clause earns its place.

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?

For a zero-param alias whose annotations already cover the safety profile and with no output schema to explain, the description gives the agent everything needed to choose correctly. Minor gap: it never states what the tool returns.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4.

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 explicitly states this is a compatibility alias of cloud_packages, which distinguishes it from its canonical sibling. It doesn't spell out what the tool actually returns (a package list), but the alias relationship is the defining purpose and it's stated plainly.

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?

"dùng cloud_packages cho tích hợp mới" directly routes the agent to the preferred alternative for new integrations, which is exactly the decision an agent faces when both tools appear. It leaves the 'use this one for existing/legacy integrations' side implied rather than explicit, so it falls just short of a 5.

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