ncloud_nks_list_node_pools

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint: true, so the read-only nature is disclosed. The description adds that it lists 'all' node pools, implying a collection result, but does not mention pagination, response format, or any other behavioral traits. Since annotations cover safety, the description is consistent and adds minimal extra context, earning a mid-range score.

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 11 words, front-loading the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary verbosity.

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 low complexity (one required parameter, read-only annotation, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It could mention what the response contains (e.g., node pool details) or note that it returns multiple items, but the core info needed for tool selection is present. The absence of an output schema shifts some burden, but the tool is simple enough that the description suffices.

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 clusterUuid described as 'UUID of the cluster'. The description merely repeats this by saying 'in a specified NKS cluster', adding no new semantic detail. The parameter is self-explanatory, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 node pools in a specified NKS cluster' uses a specific verb (list), resource (node pools), and scope (specified NKS cluster). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like ncloud_nks_list_clusters (lists clusters) and ncloud_nks_list_worker_nodes (lists worker nodes), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites like needing an existing cluster UUID beyond the parameter name, nor does it exclude overlapping tools like ncloud_nks_list_clusters or ncloud_nks_get_cluster. Usage context is only implied by the phrase 'specified NKS cluster', not explicitly stated.

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