ncloud_wms_get_monitor

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile. The description adds that it returns detailed configuration, which is useful but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like required permissions 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and resource. No redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, read-only) and the description sufficiently conveys the return type (configuration) and the need for a specific scenario ID. However, without an output schema, more detail on the exact configuration fields returned could be helpful, though not essential for correct invocation.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single scenarioId parameter, and its description ('from ncloud_wms_list_monitors') adds valuable source context. The tool description itself doesn't elaborate on parameters, so baseline is appropriate.

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 resource ('detailed configuration of a specific WMS monitoring scenario'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like ncloud_wms_list_monitors (listing) and ncloud_wms_get_results (retrieving results). It precisely states what the tool does.

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 tool description itself doesn't mention alternatives, but the parameter description in the schema ('Scenario ID from ncloud_wms_list_monitors') provides a clear prerequisite, implying that one should first list monitoring scenarios to obtain the ID. This gives clear context even though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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