ncloud_ses_get_server_specs

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals this is a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as auth requirements, rate limits, or what kind of data is returned. It does not contradict the annotation, but it also doesn't go beyond it, earning a middle score.

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 the action, resource, and constraint without any redundant words. It is immediately scannable and richly informative for its length.

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?

With one required parameter, a read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description gives the essential scope (SES, G3/KVM only) and the schema covers parameter provenance. It lacks a note about the return shape, but the operation is sufficiently simple that this is not a major gap.

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 single parameter softwareProductCode is fully described in the schema ('OS product code (from getClusterServerImageList)') with 100% schema description coverage. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the schema carries the burden effectively.

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 'Get available node server types for Search Engine Service (G3/KVM only)' clearly states a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('node server types for Search Engine Service'), and a scoping qualifier ('G3/KVM only'). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like ncloud_get_server_specs (general compute) and ncloud_nks_get_server_specs (Kubernetes).

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 clear context: this is for Search Engine Service and specifically G3/KVM node types. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. The context is sufficient for an agent to select it among SES-related tools, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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