ncloud_list_postgresql_backup_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description consistently describes a read operation ('List'). The description adds a small amount of context by mentioning 'including file names' but does not disclose pagination, response structure, or any other behavioral nuances. It does not contradict annotations.

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 that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the parenthetical adds meaningful detail. There is no redundancy or filler, so it earns a 5.

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 two well-documented parameters, the description adequately conveys the purpose. However, in the absence of an output schema, it only vaguely promises 'detailed backup information' and gives just one example (file names), leaving some ambiguity about the full return payload. A bit more specificity would improve completeness, so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions with 100% coverage, so the schema already provides the parameter semantics. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail beyond noting the operation is 'for a Cloud DB for PostgreSQL instance', which maps to the required cloudPostgresqlInstanceNo. Baseline 3 applies.

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 the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource (detailed backup information for a Cloud DB for PostgreSQL instance). The qualifier 'detailed' and the note about 'file names' distinguish it from sibling ncloud_list_postgresql_backups, which likely provides a higher-level overview.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, the 'detailed' qualifier implies it should be used when file-level backup details are needed, while a sibling like ncloud_list_postgresql_backups likely provides summary data. This is implied usage, not explicit guidance.

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