ncloud_resource_list_resources

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses non-obvious API behaviors: exact-match only (no partial matching), the productName/productDisplayName distinction, the undocumented retry that falls back without productName and exposes productNameFilterHint, and the observed pagination anomaly (size >100 actually returns more rows). This is exactly the kind of behavioral context that annotations can't convey.

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 main description is three sentences, each carrying distinct value: the action, the NRN special mode, and the exact-match/product-name caveats. No filler or restatement of the name. Additionally, the property descriptions are detailed but not bloated.

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?

The definition covers the essential return-field semantics (productName, productDisplayName, tags/groups in NRN mode) and all filter behaviors through a rich schema. Missing pieces are minor: no explicit statement of how multiple filters combine (presumably AND) and no output structure for paginated list results, which would matter more because there is no output schema.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents every parameter, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds cross-cutting semantics: the exact-match rule applies to every filter, and the productName field explanation clarifies which field the filter accepts. This lifts the value above the schema alone, though most parameter meaning still lives in the property descriptions.

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 opens with 'List resources managed in Ncloud' — a specific verb and object — and immediately distinguishes the NRN mode ('returns single resource detail with tags and groups') from the default list mode. This separates it from sibling resource-group, attach, and detach tools. Clear and 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?

It gives clear within-tool instructions: use NRN for single-resource detail, and it tells you to call without productName to discover valid codes. However, it never names sibling tools (e.g., ncloud_get_server_detail) or says when this general list is preferred over service-specific detail tools. The 'when not to use' guidance is absent, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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