ncloud_datafence_get_box_history

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's job is lighter. It adds that the data is historical (creation/return events) rather than current state, which is useful context, but says nothing about ordering, retention window, or what a history entry contains.

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?

A single tight sentence with zero filler and the key scope (Box creation/return) front-loaded. It is efficient, though a short second clause on scope or pagination could have been added without bloat.

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 paginated history endpoint with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is minimally adequate. Without an output schema, it does not describe the shape or ordering of returned history entries, leaving a modest gap.

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%, with page/size/fenceId all documented, and fenceId even cross-references ncloud_datafence_get_datafence. The description adds no syntax, format, or default information beyond what the schema already carries, 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?

The description gives a specific verb (Get) and resource (Box creation/return history) scoped to a Datafence, which is more precise than a bare name restatement. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from near-neighbors like ncloud_datafence_get_box_infra_history or ncloud_datafence_get_box_summary, so the agent must infer the distinction from the wording 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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives are given. The agent is left to infer that this is the audit/history view rather than live box state, and no sibling is referenced for the contrasting case.

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