ncloud_list_log_servers

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

The annotation already declares readOnlyHint=true, covering the safe read-only nature. The description adds value beyond this by revealing that the response includes per-server collection status, which is a behavioral detail not present in the annotation or parameter schema. It does not disclose pagination behavior, but this is a minor gap for a simple list operation.

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. It delivers the core purpose and a key output detail without any fluff, redundant phrasing, or filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

With no output schema, the description provides the essential context: what is listed (eligible servers) and a notable output element (collection status). It is sufficient for an agent to select the tool for log-collection server queries. It lacks explicit detail on pagination or return fields, but the parameter schema hints at pagination, and the description is complete enough for a straightforward list operation.

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 describes all four parameters with defaults and ranges (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter-level information, but this is acceptable because the schema carries the full burden. The baseline of 3 applies as the description does not detract or add meaning beyond the structured schema.

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 a specific verb ('List'), the resource ('servers eligible for log collection'), and the context ('Cloud Log Analytics'). The additional 'includes per-server collection status' provides a distinguishing detail that sets it apart from other server list tools, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you need to see servers that can be used for log collection in Cloud Log Analytics, including their current collection status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the specificity of 'log collection' makes the use case evident. No misleading or confusing guidance is present.

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