ncloud_sourcebuild_list_runtime_versions

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a read-only operation, and the description is consistent with that. The description does not add extra behavioral details such as handling of invalid combinations, pagination, or return format. Given the annotation, it is adequate but lacks additional context.

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 with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without repetition or verbosity.

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 operation with two parameters and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is nearly complete. It could mention the return format (e.g., array of version strings) since no output schema is provided. The parameter dependencies are clear from the schema. Overall, it covers the essential context.

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%: both parameters have descriptions referencing source tools (list_os and list_runtimes). The description simply restates that the tool lists versions for a specific OS and runtime, adding no new information beyond the schema. 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 verb 'List', the resource 'runtime versions', and the context 'for a specific OS and runtime in SourceBuild'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_os and list_runtimes by specifying that it returns versions for a given OS and runtime.

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 that the user must first obtain OS and runtime IDs from other tools, but does not explicitly state prerequisites or when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, the schema descriptions for osId and runtimeId reference 'from list_os' and 'from list_runtimes', providing clear guidance. No exclusions are mentioned, but the context is clear enough.

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