ncloud_cdss_get_os_monitoring

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds context about the metric type and node scope, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as response format, node specificity, or time range defaults. This is consistent with the annotation but adds limited incremental transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key distinguishing details. There is no redundant or wasted wording.

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 simple read-only monitoring tool with a clear description, good annotations, and a 100% documented schema, the contextual information is sufficient. The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by the descriptive metric types, though return format remains unspecified.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description does not add further meaning to the parameters beyond the schema, such as time range semantics or the role of serviceGroupInstanceNo. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('OS-level monitoring metrics'), and the target ('CDSS cluster nodes'), specifying metric types (CPU, memory, disk). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ncloud_cdss_get_monitoring or ncloud_ses_get_os_monitoring, making its purpose 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?

The description implicitly provides usage context by specifying the metric level (OS-level) and resource (CDSS cluster nodes), indicating when this tool should be selected. However, it does not explicitly reference alternative tools or provide exclusions, so it stops short of a full usage guideline.

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