ncloud_wms_get_result_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful context about what the detailed results include (load time, transactions/steps, error logs). It doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination, data format, or error conditions, but the read-only nature is covered by annotations. This adds some value beyond annotations but is not extensive.

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 immediately conveys the tool's purpose and content. There is no unnecessary information, making it highly efficient and front-loaded.

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 tool with three fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return content adequately (load time, transactions/steps, error logs). It doesn't mention edge cases or output format, but the tool is straightforward enough that this is sufficient. Slight deduction for not hinting at how 'type' affects the data or any usage restrictions.

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 description coverage is 100%, providing clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get detailed results (load time, transactions/steps, error logs) for a specific WMS monitoring result.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_results by emphasizing 'detailed' and 'specific monitoring result'.

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: you need a specific scenarioId and resultId, so this is for when you already have a monitoring result and want detailed information. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_results or list_monitors, nor provide exclusions. Usage is implied but not fully articulated.

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