ncloud_get_zones

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'List' operation aligns with that. The description adds the scoping behavior of 'current region' but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like return format, pagination, or authentication. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the essential information efficiently.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description sufficiently states what it returns (zones in current region). However, with no output schema, it doesn't detail the structure of the returned zones, which could be a minor gap for the agent to fully understand the response.

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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% vacuously. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description doesn't need to add parameter details. The description's mention of 'current region' is not a parameter but contextual context.

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 'List all available zones in the current region' uses a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('zones'), and a scope ('current region'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ncloud_get_regions or ncloud_get_current_region, making the tool's 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 clear context by stating the operation is scoped to the current region, which helps the agent understand when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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