ncloud_datafence_get_windows_server

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a non-mutating read, and the description's 'Get ... details' merely restates that with no additional context. It does not disclose what 'details' comprises, whether the instance must be running, or any auth scoping requirement, so it adds essentially nothing 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 zero filler, which is structurally sound. It is sized appropriately for a simple read tool, though it is arguably too thin rather than wastefully long.

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 getter with three fully documented required parameters and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate: an agent can call it correctly. However, with no output schema and no description of what the returned 'details' contain, the agent cannot anticipate the response shape, leaving a real 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%: each of boxId, fenceId, and instanceNo is documented and cross-referenced to the listing tool that yields it (list_boxes, get_datafence, list_box_infra). The description contributes no parameter meaning at all, so the schema does all the work and 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?

Clear verb (Get) and resource (a Box Windows server's details), and the 'Windows server' qualifier implicitly separates it from the parallel get_linux_server / get_tensorflow_server / get_connect_server siblings. It never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction from the name alone, which is why this falls 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?

The description offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions relative to the parallel per-OS getters or the broader ncloud_datafence_get_box_summary. The only routing help is indirect, coming from the schema's '(see ncloud_datafence_list_boxes)' style hints rather than the description itself.

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