ncloud_get_public_ip_target_servers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent (a read-only list). It adds the filtering criterion (servers that 'can be assigned a public IP'), which is useful, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as return format, pagination, or prerequisites. The description adds some context beyond annotations but is 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 sentence with no fluff. It immediately states the action and the resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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, parameterless, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It specifies what is returned (eligible server instances). It could add a hint about its role as a prerequisite before associating a public IP, but overall it covers the essential context.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters to document, the description does not need to add parameter-level semantics. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description is clear enough.

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 ('List') and resource ('server instances that can be assigned a public IP'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_public_ips (which lists IPs) and list_servers (which lists all servers). It precisely captures the tool's focused scope.

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 the tool should be used when you need to find servers eligible for public IP assignment, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions. Sibling tool names provide context, but the description itself offers no direct comparison.

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