Alias cũ của cloud_services_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds useful behavioral detail: the tool is a compatibility alias, sandbox=true includes trial 0đ services, and strangely 'không cần header' (no header needed). However, it omits return format, pagination, error handling, and authentication expectations. Some value added, but the profile is far from complete.

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 short Vietnamese sentences with zero filler. The alias identity and canonical routing are front-loaded first, followed by the parameter behavior. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity — one optional boolean parameter, no nested objects, no enums — the description covers identity, routing, and parameter semantics adequately. However, since there is no output schema, the absence of any mention of what the service list returns is a gap, partially mitigated by redirecting new integrations to cloud_services_list.

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% — the sandbox parameter already has a description in the schema ('sandbox=true: thử 0đ, không cần ví'). The tool description partially echoes this and adds the extra detail 'không cần header'. This is marginal value beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3 for full coverage.

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 title and description both identify the tool as 'Alias cũ của cloud_services_list' / 'Alias tương thích', making its core identity as a backward-compatible alias of the canonical service-list tool unmistakable. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming cloud_services_list as the canonical version. It lacks an explicit verb+resource statement ('lists services'), but the alias relationship carries the meaning.

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 explicitly instructs 'dùng cloud_services_list cho tích hợp mới' (use cloud_services_list for new integrations), which routes agents to the preferred alternative. The implied counterpart — use this tool only for legacy compatibility — is clear enough. It also adds usage context for the sandbox parameter. It stops short of a full when-not-to-use enumeration, so not a 5.

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