ncloud_cdss_list_config_groups

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

The description is consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=true) and adds context about the tool dealing with Kafka configuration templates, which is useful. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or scope, beyond what annotations already provide.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the main purpose. There is no extraneous information, and every word earns its place.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the resource and domain. The only minor gap is not mentioning what the response looks like (e.g., list of config group IDs/names), but this is still adequate.

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 description coverage is 100%, providing a description for the only parameter (kafkaVersionCode: 'Filter by Kafka version code'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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 tool lists config groups for CDSS, with a parenthetical clarifying these are Kafka configuration templates. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Config Groups'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create or delete.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention filtering context (e.g., using the optional parameter) or when to prefer sibling tools like get_config_group_detail. This leaves the agent with no decision support.

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