ncloud_cdss_upgrade_status

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden. The description discloses a key behavioral trait: 'result.cmakStatus in the response is deprecated by Ncloud (2026-09-17) and may be absent or stale.' This is valuable context that warns the agent not to rely on that field. It also implies the tool is a read-only status check, which is clear from 'Get the progress status.' However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral aspects like whether the operation is asynchronous, whether it requires specific permissions, or what the response structure looks like beyond the deprecated field.

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 concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides a critical deprecation warning. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. The deprecation note is important and earns its place. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly naming the sibling tool for initiating upgrades, but overall it's efficient.

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 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and warns about a deprecated field. However, it lacks context on how the status is returned (e.g., polling semantics, whether it's a one-shot check or should be polled), and it doesn't mention any relationship to ncloud_cdss_upgrade_version or ncloud_cdss_upgrade_precheck. The deprecation note is helpful but the overall context is minimal.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'serviceGroupInstanceNo' as 'Cluster instance number'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. It doesn't clarify what a 'serviceGroupInstanceNo' is in the context of a version upgrade, nor does it explain how to obtain it. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema covers the parameter fully.

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 purpose: 'Get the progress status of a version upgrade operation.' This is a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('progress status of a version upgrade operation'). It distinguishes from siblings like ncloud_cdss_upgrade_version (which initiates the upgrade) and ncloud_cdss_upgrade_precheck (which checks preconditions). However, it doesn't explicitly name these siblings, so it doesn't fully differentiate itself from other status-related tools like ncloud_cdss_rolling_restart_status or ncloud_ses_get_upgrade_progress.

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: it's for checking the status of a version upgrade operation, which would be used after initiating an upgrade via ncloud_cdss_upgrade_version. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., must have an upgrade in progress). The deprecation note about result.cmakStatus provides some guidance on what to expect, but not on when to choose this tool over others.

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