ncloud_list_vpc_peerings

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds the 'current region' scope, which is useful context, but does not disclose other behavioral details such as pagination, ordering, or whether all peerings are returned by default. With the annotation covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 good schema coverage and a readOnly annotation, this description is mostly complete. It clearly states the resource and scope. It does not explicitly mention that filters are optional or describe the return format, but for a list operation without an output schema, this is an acceptable 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 coverage is 100% with all five filter parameters described individually. The description adds no additional meaning beyond saying 'List all', implying the filters are optional. Since the schema already provides semantics for each parameter, 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 clearly states the action (List), the resource (VPC Peering instances), and the scope (current region). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ncloud_get_vpc_peering_detail (which retrieves a single peering) and ncloud_create_vpc_peering (which creates one).

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 this tool is for listing VPC Peerings in the current region, which is clear enough for a straightforward list operation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like ncloud_get_vpc_peering_detail for a specific peering, nor does it mention that filters are optional for narrowing results.

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