ncloud_list_network_interfaces

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

The description states the scope ('current region'), which is useful context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not disclose behaviors like pagination (though pageNo/pageSize params hint at it), response format, or any limits on returned data. With readOnlyHint=true already indicating a safe read operation, the description adds minimal but non-zero value.

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 immediately states the action and scope. No wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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 is a simple list operation with readOnlyHint and a fully described schema (5 params, all optional), the description is mostly adequate. However, it could benefit from noting that no required parameters means it lists all interfaces by default, and that filters are available to narrow results. The return format is not described, but no output schema exists, so a bit more detail there would help.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The schema itself explains filters (subnetNo, serverInstanceNo, networkInterfaceNoList) and pagination (pageNo, pageSize) sufficiently.

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 interfaces in the current region' uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('network interfaces') with a scope qualifier ('current region'), making the purpose clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ncloud_get_network_interface_detail (which targets a single interface), though it doesn't explicitly mention that distinction.

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 'in the current region' implies a regional scope, which provides some context for when to use this tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternative tools (e.g., get_network_interface_detail) or when not to use it. The presence of optional filters suggests use cases, but these are not spelled out in the description.

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