ncloud_get_log_count_by_period

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description reinforces that with 'Get', but does not add behavioral details such as the output format (e.g., time series) or any limitations. The bar is lower due to the annotation, and the description provides some value by clarifying the time-interval scope, but it's not rich behavioral context.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the core action. It is concise with no redundant information, achieving maximum efficiency.

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 relatively simple, and the schema covers all parameters. However, with no output schema, the description does not clarify what the return value looks like (e.g., counts grouped by interval). Given the sibling tools, a more explicit explanation of the output could improve completeness, but the current description is minimally adequate.

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%, with clear descriptions for startTime, endTime, interval, and regionCode. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per the baseline rule, a score of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: getting log counts over a time interval. It specifies the resource (log counts) and the key qualifier (time interval), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_log_count_total, get_log_count_recent, and get_log_count_by_type. The verb 'get' is appropriate for a read-only operation.

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 'over a time interval' provides clear context for when to use this tool, implying it's for time-bucketed counts. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which is a minor gap given the many sibling tools. Still, the context is unambiguous and not misleading.

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