ncloud_list_maintenances

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

With readOnlyHint=true annotation, the safety profile is already established. The description adds valuable context: paging, the need for a filter, and the default ±180-day window. However, it does not disclose the exact response format, total count behavior, or any rate-limit considerations, which would further aid an agent. Passes the bar but doesn't exceed it.

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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: purpose statement, filter requirement alternatives, and default fallback. The description is front-loaded and contains zero filler. All critical information is conveyed in under 50 words.

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 read-only list operation with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: listing, paging, and the filter/default semantics. It doesn't describe the response structure, but for a list tool the name and context strongly imply a typical list response. Given the strong parameter guidance and annotations, this is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100% (each parameter has a description), so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond by explaining the inter-parameter relationships: time range grouping (from/to with timeType) versus resource-based filtering (resourceId+productKey), plus the default window when omitted. This adds semantic clarity that the schema alone does not provide.

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 structure: 'Get the list of planned maintenance schedules in Cloud Insight (paged).' It clearly distinguishes this listing tool from sibling tools like get_maintenance_detail, create_maintenance, update_maintenance, and delete_maintenance. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 explicitly explains the required filter conditions: 'either a time range (from/to/timeType) OR a resource (resourceId+productKey)' and describes the fallback default. This gives clear context on when to use the tool and how to construct valid requests. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for getting a single maintenance or creating/updating, but the listing purpose is clear enough.

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