ncloud_list_acgs

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes that this is a safe read operation, so the description does not need to repeat that. The description adds the 'current region' scope, which is a useful behavioral constraint. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination defaults, performance implications, or what happens when no region is configured. Since annotations cover 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource: 'List all Access Control Groups (ACGs) in the current region'. It contains no filler, redundancy, or irrelevant details. Every word contributes to defining the tool's purpose and scope.

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 simplicity of the tool (a list operation with optional filters) and the high schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. The lack of an output schema means the description does not need to explain return values. The only gap is that it does not mention pagination behavior, but the schema covers pageNo/pageSize semantics. Overall, the context provided by description + schema + annotations is sufficient for invoking the tool correctly.

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?

All six parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), including types and specific descriptions like 'Filter by VPC number' and 'Page number for pagination (0 or 1 for first page)'. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Per the guideline, when schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate even without additional parameter details in the description.

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 clearly states the verb ('List'), the resource ('Access Control Groups (ACGs)'), and the scope ('in the current region'). It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like ncloud_get_acg_detail and ncloud_create_acg by conveying a list-all operation. The phrase 'all' also indicates that the default behavior is to return all ACGs, with optional filters available via parameters.

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?

Usage context is implied: one uses this tool when they need to list ACGs in the current region. However, the description does not explicitly mention alternatives, such as using ncloud_get_acg_detail for a single ACG or ncloud_get_acg_rules for rules. It also doesn't state any prerequisites or when filtering would be appropriate, though the parameter schema offers filter options. This is a clear but not fully guided context.

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