ncloud_get_route_table_detail

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, confirming this is a safe read operation. However, it adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as the specific target of the query, and does not disclose what 'detailed information' includes or any limitations. The annotation reduces the burden, but the description still lacks richer behavioral detail.

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 concise sentence that immediately states the verb and resource. It contains no redundant information or filler, making it highly scannable and appropriate for a simple read operation.

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 straightforward read operation with one parameter and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is largely sufficient. However, since there is no output schema, the description does not hint at the response structure or clarify what 'detailed information' encompasses (e.g., routes, subnets), which would improve completeness.

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 input schema already provides full coverage for the single routeTableNo parameter with a clear description ('Route table number to query'). The tool description adds no additional meaning or guidance for this parameter, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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/resource combination ('Get detailed information about a specific route table') that clearly identifies the action and scope. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like ncloud_list_route_tables and ncloud_get_routes by emphasizing the singular, detailed nature of the query.

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 usage for retrieving details of a single route table based on its wording, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. No alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the name alone.

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