ncloud_datafence_get_box_summary

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description adds essentially nothing behavioral. It does not disclose what the summary contains, whether it aggregates sub-resources, or any auth/scope requirement beyond the plain 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?

It is a single short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concise — the brevity comes at the cost of any useful content. Front-loading is fine, but there is nothing substantive to front-load.

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 datafence Box tool with two required identifiers, the description never says what the returned summary covers or how it relates to box history/infra endpoints. With no output schema to fall back on, an agent is left guessing about the content and scope of the response.

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 itself cross-references ncloud_datafence_list_boxes for boxId and ncloud_datafence_get_datafence for fenceId. The description adds no parameter meaning on top of this, 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?

States a clear verb+resource ('Get the summary of a Box'), but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and gives no differentiation from nearby siblings such as ncloud_datafence_get_box_history or ncloud_datafence_list_boxes. An agent cannot tell from the text what 'summary' means versus history or detail endpoints.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The description does not indicate when this should be called instead of get_box_history, get_box_infra_history, or get_box_custom_images, which all operate on the same Box resource.

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