ncloud_list_placement_groups

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds the region-scoping behavior. It does not mention pagination, response contents, or filtering semantics beyond 'all,' but for a read-only listing this is acceptable.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that is easy to scan and free of fluff. It loses a point for not including any usage hints or caveats, but it remains appropriately concise.

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, read-only list tool with fully documented optional filters and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the core behavior sufficiently. No output schema exists, but the tool is low-complexity and the description is adequate for selection and invocation.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema with 100% coverage, so the description adds no extra semantic value beyond naming the filters. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('placement groups'), and scope ('current region'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_placement_group_detail or create_placement_group.

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 use for retrieving placement groups but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over get_placement_group_detail or how the optional filters should be applied. It relies on the tool name and schema to convey the listing role.

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