cloud_plan_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully indicates the tool returns a plan/pricing table and a sizing recommendation, and frames the operation as reading before cost approval. However, it does not explicitly state read-only safety, output shape, or side-effect behavior beyond the implicit '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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the main output (plans with monthly/yearly prices), then the sizing recommendation and usage context. The bilingual structure adds a little redundancy, and the 'admin_only không tự chọn' phrase is slightly cryptic, but overall there is no wasted filler.

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 low-complexity listing tool with three optional, self-descriptive parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough to call correctly: it lists plans and prices, accepts resource requirements for a sizing suggestion, and is meant to be read before cost approval. It could be more explicit about no-argument behavior and output structure, but these are minor gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that cpu, ram_gb, and disk_gb represent the required/resources values used for the cheapest-fit recommendation. It does not explain behavior when all parameters are omitted or add per-parameter detail, leaving only the self-explanatory property names.

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 says the tool lists plans with monthly/yearly prices and gives a recommendation for the cheapest plan meeting CPU/RAM/disk requirements. It uses specific verbs like 'List' and 'gợi ý' against a concrete resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar siblings such as cloud_packages or cloud_prices.

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 gives a clear usage context: read this before approving costs, and notes an admin-only constraint with 'admin_only không tự chọn'. It does not name alternative tools for different scenarios, but it does convey when and under what restriction the tool should be used.

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