ncloud_query_monitoring_data

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

The `readOnlyHint: true` annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating that it returns metric data, but it does not disclose details such as time-range handling, default aggregation behavior, or any rate limits. It neither contradicts annotations nor adds substantial behavioral insight.

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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the primary action. It contains no fluff or redundant detail, and every word contributes to conveying the tool's core function.

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 query tool with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps: it does not describe the return value structure, how to interpret the time-series data, or the relationship between `cw_key` and `prodName`. However, the annotations and schema mitigate the absence of an output schema, so the description is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 description coverage is 100% for all parameters, so the schema already documents each field (e.g., `metric` examples, `interval` enums, `dimensions` structure). The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 queries time-series monitoring data from Cloud Insight for a specific product and metric. It uses a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('time-series monitoring data'), which distinguishes it from many non-monitoring tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the closely related sibling `ncloud_query_monitoring_data_multiple`.

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 such as `ncloud_query_monitoring_data_multiple` or service-specific monitoring tools (e.g., `ncloud_cdss_get_monitoring`, `ncloud_ses_get_monitoring`). There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is the preferred choice.

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