ncloud_cm2_list_cloud_certificates

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

readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read, but the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context the annotations don't cover: the auth requirement and the exact failure mode (HTTP 403 for Sub Account keys), with provenance. It does not describe pagination defaults, which the schema controls.

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?

Front-loads what the tool lists, then scope, then the auth caveat. Three compact sentences with no filler. The provenance parenthesis ('confirmed by Ncloud support; verified 2026-10-02') is slightly verbose but provides evidentiary weight.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, auth constraints, and the 403 pitfall an agent would otherwise hit blindly. Pagination semantics live in the schema, so nothing critical 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 description coverage is 100%, so page, pageSize, and certificateName are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about filtering or paging behavior, so the baseline 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?

Names a specific verb (List) and a precisely scoped resource: 'Cloud Basic SSL and Global Edge certificates issued through Certificate Manager (Certificate Manager 2.0)', plus 'Public zone only'. This scope differentiates it from siblings like ncloud_cm2_list_certificates and ncloud_cm2_list_advanced_certificates without naming them explicitly. Clear and specific, though it stops short of explicitly routing to the sibling it complements.

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?

Provides concrete preconditions: certificate must be in the public zone, and a main-account API key is required because Sub Account keys return HTTP 403. This effectively communicates when the tool will and won't work. It does not, however, name sibling list tools or state when to prefer them.

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