ncloud_list_mysql_instances

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe, read-only operation. The description 'List' is consistent with this and adds context that it covers all MySQL instances in the current region. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (despite pageNo/pageSize parameters), what the response contains, or whether filters are optional. No contradiction with annotations.

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 ('List all') and resource. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 list tool with optional filters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose. However, it lacks guidance on return value structure, pagination behavior, or related tools (e.g., for instance details or other database types). Given the large sibling set, a bit more context would make it complete, but complexity is low, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning; it simply states 'List all,' which could imply no filtering, though the optional filter parameters are documented in the schema. This is not contradictory but also not additive.

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' with a clear resource ('Cloud DB for MySQL instances') and scope ('in the current region'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ncloud_get_mysql_instance_detail (which retrieves a single instance) and ncloud_list_mysql_databases (which lists databases, not instances).

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 for when to use the tool (listing all MySQL instances in the current region) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. For instance, it does not say 'for a single instance, use get_mysql_instance_detail' or note that this is only for instances, not databases or users. Usage is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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