ncloud_list_ips_events

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already conveys that the operation is read-only, and the description does not contradict this. The description adds the context that events are from Security Monitoring and that a subscription is required, but does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as pagination behavior or response structure. Given the existing annotation, the description adds some value but lacks richer behavioral disclosure.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two sentences that state the primary purpose and a key prerequisite. Every word is necessary and contributes to user understanding, with no redundancy or padding.

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?

Despite having 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate for a straightforward listing tool. The schema covers all parameter details, and the annotation clarifies the read-only safety profile. The main gap is the lack of response format information, but this is not critical for a list operation and the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and constraints.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the schema already provides the parameter meanings. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what is already documented, so it meets the baseline of 3 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 ('List') and resource ('IPS intrusion prevention events'), clearly identifying the tool's function. It distinguishes it from sibling event-list tools by naming the event type (IPS) and the source service (Security Monitoring).

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 a clear usage context by stating the requirement of being subscribed to Security Monitoring, which helps the agent determine eligibility. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like ncloud_list_av_events or ncloud_list_waf_events, though the tool name and description make the distinction obvious.

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