ncloud_list_network_acls

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

The annotated readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation. The description adds the 'current region' scoping, which is useful context, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, return format, or permission requirements. It does not contradict the annotations, and the additions are minimal beyond the annotation.

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, concise sentence that conveys the core purpose without waste. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word adds value. No redundant or vague phrasing.

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 3 optional filters and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It clearly specifies the default behavior (list all in current region), but does not mention that filters are available or describe the response structure. Given the low complexity and good schema coverage, this is a minor gap.

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%, with each parameter (vpcNo, networkAclName, networkAclNoList) having clear descriptions. The tool description itself does not add semantic meaning beyond the schema; it merely says 'List all' without mentioning that filters are available. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 Network ACLs in the current region' clearly states the action (list), the resource (Network ACLs), and the scope (current region). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like ncloud_get_network_acl_detail (fetch a single ACL) and ncloud_get_network_acl_rules (list rules for an ACL).

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 implies usage (listing ACLs) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as ncloud_get_network_acl_detail or ncloud_get_network_acl_rules. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use scenarios are given. The purpose is clear enough that a user could infer, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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