ncloud_cdss_rolling_restart_status

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

Annotations already establish this is idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that by warning that result.cmakStatus is deprecated as of 2026-09-17 and may be absent or stale, which helps an agent avoid misreading response data. It does not cover other possible behaviors like polling intervals or empty-result semantics, but the added caveat is meaningful.

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 two sentences with no filler: the core purpose is front-loaded, and the deprecation warning is the only additional detail, earning its place by preventing misinterpretation of the response.

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 read-only status query with one documented parameter, idempotent annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. The deprecation caveat adds important field-level context, though it does not explicitly connect this status tool to its lifecycle siblings (rolling_restart and rolling_restart_precheck) or explain how to interpret an absent cmakStatus.

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?

There is only one parameter, serviceGroupInstanceNo, and the schema already documents it as 'Cluster instance number' with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional meaning, format requirements, or usage context for the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the progress status of a rolling restart operation.' This clearly distinguishes it from related siblings like ncloud_cdss_rolling_restart (initiates) and ncloud_cdss_rolling_restart_precheck (pre-checks), so an agent can identify the tool's role without inferring from the name alone.

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 wording implies this tool is used to poll or inspect the progress of a rolling restart initiated elsewhere, but it never explicitly says 'call after ncloud_cdss_rolling_restart' or 'use instead of ncloud_cdss_get_cluster_status.' Usage context is present by implication, not by direct guidance or exclusions.

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