ncloud_get_file_plugin

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a read-only operation, and the description's verb 'Get' aligns with that. The description adds minimal extra behavioral context, such as the scoping to a specific server instance, but doesn't disclose what happens if the instance is invalid or the structure of the returned configuration. The annotation covers the safety profile, 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, focused sentence that states the action, resource, and scope without any redundant words or filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and fully informative in one line.

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 the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, read-only annotation, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and scope. It doesn't detail the response format, but for a simple configuration retrieval, this is not a significant gap. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'instanceNo' with a clear description ('Server instance number'). The description's word 'specific' reinforces that this parameter identifies a unique instance but adds no new semantic information beyond the schema. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('file monitoring plugin configuration') and the scope ('for a specific server instance'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ncloud_list_file_plugins, which implies listing all configurations, and ncloud_add_file_plugin/remove_file_plugin, which are mutations.

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 phrase 'for a specific server instance' implies this tool is for retrieving a single instance's configuration rather than listing all, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like list_file_plugins, nor does it mention exclusions. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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