ncloud_functions_list_actions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that it returns all actions and clarifies the packageName special value, which is useful context. But it doesn't disclose any further behavioral traits like sorting or pagination; consistent with the annotation.

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?

Single sentence that is direct and front-loaded; zero 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?

For a simple read-only list operation with complete schema coverage and readOnly annotation, the description is sufficient. It covers the only non-obvious detail (unpackaged actions via '-') and the purpose. Minor gap: no information about the returned action list structure, but that is likely unnecessary for a list tool.

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 coverage is 100%; both parameters have descriptions and defaults defined in the schema. The description largely duplicates the packageName parameter's schema description ('use '-' for unpackaged actions'), adding no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('actions') with a clear scope ('in a package'), and the parenthetical distinguishes unpackaged actions. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like ncloud_functions_list_packages, which lists packages.

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 implies the appropriate use case: listing actions within a specific package, with a convention for unpackaged actions. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the context is clear enough.

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