ncloud_cm2_download_certificate

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds substantial context beyond that — the returned artifact is a zip of PEM files, inline base64 applies only at or below 256 KB, only public-zone certificates qualify, and Sub Account keys are rejected with HTTP 403. That auth and failure-mode disclosure is exactly what an agent needs, and it is consistent with the read-only annotation.

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?

Sizing is appropriate and the output-shape decision is front-loaded after a one-clause purpose statement. The trailing verification provenance ('confirmed by Ncloud support; verified 2026-10-02 with NCP_ADMINISTRATOR') is heavier than most agents need, though it does support trustworthiness.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden itself and does so: artifact format, dual delivery modes, size threshold, zone restriction, and credential requirements are all covered. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: savePath is not just a path but a switch that changes the response shape (file on disk vs inline base64 payload). The certificateNo and type parameters are still left entirely to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (download) and resource (certificate) and immediately pins the output format — a zip of PEM files from Certificate Manager 2.0. An agent can distinguish this from sibling certificate tools like ncloud_cm2_get_certificate_chain or ncloud_cm2_list_certificates without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance: pass savePath to write to disk, otherwise the content comes back inline as base64 (with the 256 KB size cap stated). It also scopes applicability (public zone only, main-account key required). It does not name a sibling alternative when download is the wrong choice, so it stops short of a 5.

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