ncloud_sourcebuild_list_os

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a read-only operation. The description adds 'List' which is consistent. No additional behavioral traits such as caching, rate limits, or result ordering are disclosed. The description adds minimal value beyond the annotation.

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, clear sentence that immediately conveys the purpose. It is concise with no wasted words.

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 tool is simple: no parameters, no output schema. The description adequately states its function. While it could mention the return format (e.g., list of OS names), it is not strictly necessary. The completeness is sufficient for this straightforward tool.

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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is used for zero parameters. The description does not need to add parameter semantics as there are none.

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 action 'List' and the resource 'available operating systems for SourceBuild build environment'. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like ncloud_sourcebuild_list_projects or ncloud_sourcebuild_list_runtimes, which list different entities.

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 implies usage when the user needs to know the available OS options. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Given the large number of sibling tools, some usage context would be beneficial but is not critical.

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