ncloud_functions_list_actions

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, which the description aligns with. The description adds no extra safety/behavioral detail such as listing only metadata (not invoking actions) or that results are filtered by platform. It doesn't contradict annotations, but it also doesn't go beyond the provided annotation plus the obvious list semantics.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loads the main verb/resource, lists fields compactly, and includes the critically important '-' convention. No wasted words or redundant schema repetition.

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 with optional params and 100% schema coverage, the description plus schema are adequate. It doesn't mention output schema (none provided) or pagination, but for typical action listing these are non-critical. Could mention that it returns only metadata and not action code, but this is not a major 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%: both parameters (platform, packageName) have descriptions. The description reinforces packageName's meaning with the '-' convention, which is already in the schema. It adds little beyond the schema, but the schema is sufficient, so a 3 is the baseline.

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?

Description says 'List actions in a package' with specific fields (name, type, runtime, description) and the type taxonomy (basic/web/sequence/sequence-web). It clearly distinguishes from sibling ncloud_functions_list_packages and ncloud_functions_get_action. The '-' for no package is a useful scoping detail.

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 states what it lists and how to handle unpackaged actions ('-' = no package). It doesn't explicitly say when to use this vs ncloud_functions_get_action or ncloud_functions_list_packages, but the resource and granularity are clear enough that a capable agent can infer. Lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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