ncloud_list_mongodb_users

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'List users' aligns with this safety profile without contradicting it. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotation already conveys, such as return format, pagination, or filtering capabilities. With the annotation covering the read-only nature, a score of 3 reflects the minimal added 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, front-loaded sentence of nine words: 'List users in a Cloud DB for MongoDB instance'. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple list 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 simple read-only tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. It clearly states the action and resource. However, because no output schema exists, the description does not mention what fields the returned users contain (e.g., usernames, roles), which would enhance completeness. The readOnlyHint and schema cover safety and parameters, but the return payload remains unspecified.

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 has 100% description coverage: the only parameter, cloudMongoDbInstanceNo, is described as 'Cloud MongoDB instance number'. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning to this parameter. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema fully documents the parameter, leaving the description with nothing extra to contribute.

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 'List users in a Cloud DB for MongoDB instance' uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource (users within a MongoDB instance). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ncloud_add_mongodb_users, ncloud_change_mongodb_users, and ncloud_delete_mongodb_users by indicating a read-only listing operation, and from ncloud_list_mongodb_instances by focusing on users rather than instances.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contrast with other list operations (e.g., list_mysql_users). The usage context is only implied by the tool name and description, not explicitly stated.

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