vibecloud_plan_list

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

With no annotations present, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add meaningful behavior: it says plans are compared at monthly/yearly price points, that the cheapest plan sufficient for the given specs is suggested, and that admin_only plans are not auto-selected — the latter being a genuine non-obvious trait. However, it never explicitly confirms read-only status, authentication needs, or what happens when no parameters are supplied, so it falls short of fully carrying that burden.

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 short and front-loads the key fact ("Alias tương thích của cloud_plan_list / Compatibility alias"), which is good. However, the bilingual formatting is redundant — the alias statement is repeated almost verbatim in two languages, and the detailed Vietnamese content (admin_only behavior, cost-approval guidance) has no English counterpart, so the two sections are not functionally parallel. The redundancy wastes space without adding information.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description carries the completeness burden for a moderately simple 3-parameter list tool. It covers the core essentials: what is listed (plans with monthly/yearly prices), the recommendation logic (cheapest plan satisfying requirements), the admin_only exclusion, and when to read it (before cost approval). Remaining gaps are behavior with zero parameters, parameter units and combination semantics, and the output shape, leaving the definition adequate but not fully complete.

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. The phrase "gợi ý gói rẻ nhất đủ CPU/RAM/đĩa yêu cầu" maps cpu, ram_gb, and disk_gb to the sizing requirements that drive the recommendation, giving the bare schema fields real semantic meaning. It does not clarify units (e.g., cores vs vCPU), whether the three fields must be combined, or the behavior when all are omitted.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "List plans, prices and sizing recommendation," and the Vietnamese text adds concrete detail — a plan table with monthly/yearly prices that recommends the cheapest plan meeting CPU/RAM/disk requirements. It explicitly identifies itself as a "Compatibility alias" of cloud_plan_list, which cleanly distinguishes it from the many sibling tools. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 Vietnamese phrase "Đọc trước khi duyệt chi phí" ("read before approving costs") gives an explicit when-to-use context: consult this tool prior to cost approval decisions. Naming cloud_plan_list as the alias target tells the agent this is the vibecloud-compatible variant of that exact tool. It does not, however, state explicit exclusions or compare itself to nearby siblings like cloud_prices or cloud_packages.

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