ncloud_get_member_server_image_detail

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already discloses the safe read-only nature, and the description is consistent with it. However, beyond that, the description adds little behavioral context: it does not describe what specific details are returned, any error conditions, or other traits. The annotation lowers the bar, but the description still offers minimal additional value.

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 directly states the tool's purpose. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 detail-getter with one parameter, the description is adequate but lacks an indication of what fields make up the 'detailed information'. Since there is no output schema, the agent is left guessing what will be returned. This prevents the description from being fully complete, though the simplicity of the tool means it is minimally viable.

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 covers the parameter fully with the description 'Member server image instance number to query', and the tool description adds no extra semantic detail about the parameter. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description does not go beyond that.

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 detailed information') and the resource ('member server image instance'), making it easy to distinguish from list-type tools like ncloud_get_member_server_image_list and from the related ncloud_get_server_image_detail. The verb and object are specific and 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 implies when to use this tool (when you need details for a specific member server image instance, given you have its instance number), but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites or situations where another tool would be more appropriate, so it remains at the level of implied usage.

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