ncloud_functions_list_packages

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read operation, so the description does not need to restate that. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context: no mention of platform scoping (the platform parameter defaults to 'vpc'), pagination, response format, or any constraints. The term 'all' could be misleading given the platform filter, but that nuance is not addressed.

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 a one-sentence, front-loaded statement with no filler. Every word is essential and it is easy to scan. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, achieving maximum conciseness without losing clarity.

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?

The tool has low complexity, a readOnly annotation, and a single documented parameter. But the description omits the platform-scoping behavior introduced by the schema, which is a relevant operational detail. There is also no output schema to clarify return structure, so the description carries the burden of implying what 'list' returns, but it only says 'list packages'. Overall, it's adequate but has visible gaps regarding platform filtering and return semantics.

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 schema fully documents the only parameter 'platform' with enum values and a default, so schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra meaning about parameters—it doesn't explain how platform affects the result set. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage, but doesn't enhance understanding beyond what's already in the schema.

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 the specific verb 'List' and explicitly names the resource 'Cloud Functions packages'. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like ncloud_functions_get_package (which retrieves a single package) and create/delete_package (mutations). The word 'all' clarifies it is a collection-listing operation, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios (e.g., 'when you need to enumerate all packages'), no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only implied usage is the obvious one—list packages—so there is no explicit or contextual guidance beyond the action itself.

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