ncloud_ses_get_upgrade_progress

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation (a 'Get' operation) and adds no additional behavioral context. It does not disclose return format, progress metrics, or any side effects. With annotations already covering the safety profile, the description adds minimal value beyond the obvious read nature.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 getter with a fully documented schema and a readOnlyHint, the description is adequate. However, without an output schema, it does not explain what the response contains (e.g., progress percentage, status fields), leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter, with the schema describing it as 'Cluster instance number'. The description adds no further parameter semantics, and the baseline of 3 applies when the schema fully covers parameter meaning.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and identifies a clear resource ('version upgrade progress for a Search Engine Service cluster'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ncloud_ses_upgrade_version and ncloud_ses_precheck_upgrade by focusing on retrieving progress rather than initiating or checking preconditions.

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 implies usage context (monitoring progress after an upgrade) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The naming and sibling set suggest a natural workflow, but that is inferred rather than stated.

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