ncloud_advisor_get_checkitems

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read nature is clear. The description adds what the output contains (item codes, names, etc.), which is useful beyond annotations. However, it omits behavioral details like potential error conditions, data freshness, or pagination (if any). With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence, directly stating the purpose and output. No extraneous words, and it is front-loaded with the core action. Every part earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 required enum parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and what is returned. However, it does not clarify what 'result table header info' means or whether results are paginated. Minor gap, but overall sufficient.

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%, and the parameter 'categoryCode' is fully documented with enum values and descriptions in the schema. The description does not add further meaning; it only references 'a specific category'. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('Cloud Advisor check items'), and the scope ('for a specific category'). It also lists the returned fields (item codes, names, descriptions, recommendations, header info), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ncloud_advisor_get_categories or ncloud_advisor_get_item_status.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many sibling advisor tools (e.g., get_categories, get_item_status, refresh_item), there is no explicit context for selection. While it implies needing a category code, it lacks usage conditions or exclusions.

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