ncloud_hadoop_list_objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'List' wording is consistent. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotation—it does not mention pagination, return format, whether directoryName is required for listing, or how the Hadoop instance linkage affects results. With annotations present, this meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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. Every element ('List', 'objects', 'Object Storage bucket', 'linked to Cloud Hadoop') contributes to the core meaning, making it an appropriately sized and well-structured description.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 required param, no output schema, readOnly annotation), the description plus schema covers the basics. However, it does not disclose the response shape (since no output schema exists) or clarify that bucketName/directoryName are optional filters and how they interact with the required cloudHadoopInstanceNo. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, which lands at the baseline of 3 per the rubric.

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') with a precise resource ('objects in Object Storage bucket') and a distinguishing scope ('linked to Cloud Hadoop'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like ncloud_list_objects (generic Object Storage listing) and ncloud_hadoop_list_buckets (lists buckets, not objects).

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 phrase 'linked to Cloud Hadoop' implies when this tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over ncloud_list_objects or other sibling tools, nor any exclusions stated. The usage context is inferable but not directly documented.

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