ncloud_list_mssql_instances

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates the safe read-only nature of the operation. The description adds the region-scoping context but does not disclose further behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, response format, or filter semantics beyond what the schema already shows. With the annotation covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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 that states exactly what the tool does with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 list tool with a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is sufficient: it identifies the resource type (MSSQL instances) and the scope (current region). However, there is no output schema, so the agent is not told what fields are returned, and pagination behavior is only implied by the schema parameters. The description could be more helpful but is not inadequate for this low-complexity 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for pagination and filters, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics; the word 'all' could imply unfiltered listing, which is slightly at odds with the optional filters but not misleading. A baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool lists all MSSQL instances in the current region, using a specific verb and resource. The 'all' scope and region qualifier distinguish it from detail-lookup tools like ncloud_get_mssql_instance_detail and other MSSQL-specific list tools.

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 a clear context (listing all MSSQL instances in the current region) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not reference sibling tools like get_mssql_instance_detail for single-instance lookups or list_mssql_backups for backups, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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