ncloud_get_nas_snapshot_config_history

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds the notion of 'configuration history' but does not clarify what historical changes are included, how far back the history goes, or the response structure. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotation, which is acceptable given the annotation, 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, front-loaded, grammatically correct sentence with no redundancy or filler. It communicates the essential purpose efficiently.

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, single-parameter, read-only tool, the description is mostly complete. It identifies what the tool retrieves and the schema defines the required parameter. However, since there is no output schema, the agent must infer what 'configuration history' includes; a brief mention of the response content would have made it fully complete.

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% because the only parameter, nasVolumeInstanceNo, has a description. The tool description does not add any additional semantic detail about the parameter. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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) and the specific resource (snapshot configuration history for a NAS volume instance). It is specific enough to communicate the core purpose, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like ncloud_list_nas_snapshots or ncloud_get_nas_volume_detail, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related operations such as creating snapshots, changing snapshot config, or listing snapshots, nor does it state any preconditions or exclusions. Context signals reveal siblings but the description itself offers no usage direction.

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