ncloud_sourcebuild_list_runtimes

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, and the description does not contradict it. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as the fact that it is OS-scoped, but does not disclose output format or other behaviors. Given the annotation coverage, this meets the baseline.

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 object. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or extraneous information.

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 one parameter, readOnlyHint annotation, and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It specifies what is listed and the scoping requirement (OS), and the return value is implied by the action of listing runtime types.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a description for osId that references list_os. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the schema handles the parameter semantics. The cross-reference in the schema is helpful but not attributable to the description.

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 tool lists available runtime types for a specific OS in SourceBuild, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool list_runtime_versions by focusing on types rather than versions, even though this distinction is not explicitly stated.

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 and schema parameter hint that osId should come from list_os ('OS ID (from list_os)'), which implies a prerequisite. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_runtime_versions or list_compute, and no exclusions are mentioned.

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