ncloud_globalcdn_get_purge_history

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation is consistent with the 'Get' verb, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as rate limits, result ordering, pagination, or side effects. It provides no additional transparency 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 sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word is informative, with no redundancy or filler.

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 lookup with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description states the core purpose and scope. It does not describe return values or pagination, but these are not critical for a basic history retrieval tool.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description's 'for an instance' and 'optionally filtered by purge IDs' echoes the schema's cdnInstanceNo and purgeIdList, adding only minimal clarification that the filter is optional.

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 'Get' with a specific resource 'Global CDN purge request history' and scope 'for an instance (optionally filtered by purge IDs)'. It clearly identifies the tool's function but does not explicitly contrast with the similar sibling tool ncloud_cdnplus_get_purge_history.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the get-history function, and no mention is made of the sibling CDN+ history tool.

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