ncloud_datafence_get_fence_custom_images

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral context such as pagination, result ordering, or whether the list is filtered by the fence's product/region. It essentially restates the resource without disclosing anything beyond the 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a tool that sits next to a confusingly similar sibling.

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 simple read-only list tool with fully documented params and an output schema absent but return type obvious, the description is minimally adequate. It nonetheless omits the fence/box disambiguation an agent needs to pick this tool confidently over its sibling.

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 both required params documented (fenceId references ncloud_datafence_get_datafence, productCode is enum-constrained). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, 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 gives a specific verb (List) and resource (custom server images) scoped to Datafence servers, so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely-named sibling ncloud_datafence_get_box_custom_images, leaving the fence-vs-box distinction to inference.

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 named alternative. The agent must infer the call context from the name alone, and the presence of a near-identical sibling (get_box_custom_images) makes the missing differentiation more costly.

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