ncloud_get_cache_target_subnets

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the operation is read-only, and the description's 'List' verb aligns with that. The description adds the context that subnets are specifically for a Cache instance, but does not disclose details like pagination, response shape, or prerequisites. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence of 10 words, front-loaded with the verb 'List'. It is efficient with no redundant 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?

The tool is a straightforward list operation with read-only annotation and no output schema. The description explains the core action, but it leaves gaps such as what makes a subnet 'available' (e.g., same VPC as the instance), whether regionCode defaults, and the expected response format. For a simple tool, this is moderately complete but not fully specified.

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 input schema documents both parameters with descriptions (regionCode as 'Region code (KR, KRS)' and cloudCacheInstanceNo as 'Cloud Cache instance number'). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description doesn't need to add much, and it doesn't—it only references 'specific instance' which maps to cloudCacheInstanceNo. No further parameter semantics are provided beyond the schema.

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 tool lists subnets available for Cloud DB for Cache within a specific instance, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ncloud_get_cache_target_vpcs (VPCs vs subnets) and other services' target_subnets by naming 'Cloud DB for Cache.' However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or edge cases.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of using it when selecting subnets for a Cache instance, nor any exclusions. The sibling tools include analogous functions for MySQL/PostgreSQL/MongoDB, but the description doesn't clarify when this specific one is needed.

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