nacos_list_namespaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the exact API endpoints (v1/v2/v3) and clarifying the return content (includes public namespace, quota, and usage). This gives the agent a more concrete picture of what the tool does.

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?

Description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured endpoint references and a clear note on return content. No redundant sentences; each part adds context without bloat.

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 zero-parameter list tool, the description is complete: it states what is listed, the namespace scope, and what information is returned. An output schema exists to define the exact return structure, so the description does not need to duplicate that. No gaps are apparent.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty. The description correctly avoids fabricating parameter explanations. Baseline 4 is appropriate because parameter semantics are trivially covered by the absence of parameters.

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?

Description clearly states the action: '查询命名空间列表' (query namespace list) and specifies the resource. It distinguishes from sibling nacos_get_namespace by enumerating all namespaces including public, and mentions quota/usage. The verb and scope are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear context: use to retrieve all namespaces from the current Nacos instance, with added details about public namespace inclusion and quota/usage. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the scope is sufficiently clear given the sibling context.

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