ncloud_datafence_get_box_infra_history

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes the safety profile, so the description is not burdened with that. However, it adds nothing beyond the annotation: no note on pagination behavior, result ordering, retention window, or relationship to the change_* tools that produce these history entries.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is close to under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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 history tool with a fully covered schema and an annotation supplying the safety profile, the core need is met. Still, the description omits the distinction between Box-level and Datafence-level infra history and says nothing about pagination despite two paging parameters.

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%, and the schema documents both pagination parameters and cross-references boxId and fenceId to sibling listing tools. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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: getting the infrastructure change history of a Box. It is clear on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as ncloud_datafence_get_box_history (history vs infra history) or ncloud_datafence_get_fence_infra_history (Box vs Datafence), leaving ambiguity about scope.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this rather than ncloud_datafence_get_box_history, ncloud_datafence_list_box_infra, or ncloud_datafence_get_fence_infra_history, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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