ncloud_list_port_plugins

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already declares this as a safe read operation. The description adds the 'full list' scope (no filtering), which is useful context, but it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits such as return format, pagination, or whether the list includes plugins from all servers. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description meets the bar but doesn't exceed it.

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 sentence of 10 words, front-loaded with the verb 'Get.' Every word earns its place — it states the action, the resource, and the scope ('full list'). There is zero waste 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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what is retrieved and the annotation confirms it's a safe read. The only gap is that it doesn't relate itself to the companion tools (get/add/remove/set_port_plugin) or describe the return structure, but these are not critical for a simple enumeration operation.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description reinforces that no parameters are needed by framing this as a 'full list' operation, which is sufficient since there is nothing to document.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get the full list of Cloud Insight port monitoring plugins.' The word 'full' clarifies scope, and the phrase 'Cloud Insight port monitoring plugins' precisely identifies the resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like ncloud_get_port_plugin (single plugin) and ncloud_list_process_plugins (different plugin type).

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 context — this is the list-all operation for port plugins — but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling tools like ncloud_get_port_plugin and ncloud_add_port_plugin exist, and the description could have mentioned 'for a single plugin, use get_port_plugin' but does not. Usage is clear but only by implication from the name and 'full list' phrasing.

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