ncloud_cdss_get_monitoring

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already informs the agent this is a safe read operation, lowering the bar. The description adds the scope 'cluster and its nodes' but gives no further behavioral detail such as what metrics are included, time range handling, or response format. It does not contradict the annotation, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word contributes value and there is no fluff. It is optimally sized for a simple read operation.

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 basic read tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It does not specify what monitoring metrics are returned, nor does it differentiate from the similar 'ncloud_cdss_get_os_monitoring' tool. Given the simplicity and the presence of the sibling, a score of 3 reflects that it is minimally complete but lacks useful 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%, so all three parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description 'Get monitoring metrics for a CDSS cluster and its nodes' adds nothing about parameter semantics beyond implying the cluster is specified by serviceGroupInstanceNo. Baseline 3 is correct since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('monitoring metrics'), and the scope ('CDSS cluster and its nodes'). It is specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the closely related sibling tool 'ncloud_cdss_get_os_monitoring', which also deals with monitoring for CDSS.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is a sibling tool 'ncloud_cdss_get_os_monitoring' that seems to overlap, but the description does not clarify the distinction (e.g., cluster-level vs OS-level metrics). No exclusions or context are given, leaving the agent to guess when each is appropriate.

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