ncloud_list_waf_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the subscription requirement, which is useful contextual information, but does not disclose other behavioral details such as pagination defaults or error conditions.

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?

Two short sentences deliver the core purpose and a key restriction with no filler. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

Given strong schema coverage and read-only annotation, the description sufficiently orients the agent for a list operation. It does not need to explain return values or filters because the schema covers those; the subscription caveat is a welcome addition.

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?

All 11 parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description need not repeat them. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, but none are needed.

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?

Clearly identifies a specific operation: listing WAF security events from Security Monitoring. Expands WAF acronym and distinguishes from sibling event-list tools (AV, IDS, IPS, DDoS) through the WAF scope.

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?

Provides a clear prerequisite (Security Monitoring subscription) and context that this is a read-only listing operation. Does not explicitly mention alternative tools for other event types, but the name and description imply the niche.

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