ncloud_datafence_get_linux_server

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

Annotations supply readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond that: no note about required permissions, whether the box must be in a particular state, or what kind of detail set is returned. For a read tool with an output-less schema, a bare restatement of the name is thin.

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 short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though so minimal that it borders on under-specification rather than crisp 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?

Three required hierarchical identifiers and no output schema mean the description should at least indicate what 'details' means or note the prerequisite chain. The schema covers parameter discovery adequately, so this is minimally viable but leaves the agent without usage context.

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 each of the three IDs (fenceId, boxId, instanceNo) is documented with a cross-reference to the tool that produces it. The description adds no extra semantics 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (a Box Linux server's details), and the 'Linux server' qualifier implicitly separates it from siblings like ncloud_datafence_get_windows_server and ncloud_datafence_get_tensorflow_server. It does not explicitly name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this instead of the other datafence get_* server tools or the related list tools. The only hint is that the schema parameters point at ncloud_datafence_list_boxes and ncloud_datafence_list_box_infra for ID discovery, but that lives in the schema, not the description.

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