ncloud_datafence_list_boxes

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, lowering the bar, but the description adds no behavioral context at all: no note on pagination semantics (page/size), no pointer to what a returned Box represents, and no indication of empty/error behavior. It contributes 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 wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity is closer to under-specification than true concision given how little it conveys.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description should at least clarify pagination behavior or how results relate to sibling list tools. With fully documented params and a read-only annotation the gap is not severe, but the definition remains too thin to fully orient an agent in a densely populated datafence tool family.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter (page, size, fenceId) already carries its own description, including the fenceId cross-reference to ncloud_datafence_get_datafence. Per the baseline for high coverage, a 3 is appropriate since the description supplies no additional parameter meaning.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('Boxes') scoped to a Datafence, so the operation is identifiable. However, it does almost nothing beyond restating the tool name, and it does not distinguish this from siblings such as ncloud_datafence_get_box_summary or ncloud_datafence_list_box_infra, which also concern Boxes within a Datafence.

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 mention of prerequisites, and no named alternative. An agent gets no help deciding between this and the many other datafence Box tools (get_box_summary, get_box_history, list_box_infra, etc.).

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