ncloud_datafence_list_box_infra

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds useful return-shape context (instanceNo and infraType) but says nothing about pagination behavior despite the schema exposing page/size, nor about permissions or result limits.

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 sentence with the verb front-loaded and no wasted clauses. The parenthetical enumeration is dense but informative rather than filler.

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 listing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description rounds out the picture by naming the returned fields. It lacks any note on pagination or volume, which would make it fully self-sufficient.

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%, so both required IDs and the paging params are already documented with cross-references (see ncloud_datafence_list_boxes / get_datafence). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (infrastructure of a Box) and enumerates the concrete contents (connect/linux/windows/tensorflow servers, NAS, Hadoop clusters). It distinguishes itself from the fence-level sibling only implicitly via 'of a Box', never naming ncloud_datafence_list_fence_infra, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 contains no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives such as ncloud_datafence_get_box_summary or ncloud_datafence_get_box_infra_history. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the box-scoped infra listing.

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