ncloud_datafence_list_fence_infra

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read operation, and the description adds that the listed infrastructure includes servers and NAS. However, it does not describe pagination behavior, return format, or any other behavioral context 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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. The core purpose and listed resource types are front-loaded and immediately clear.

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 whose input schema fully documents its three parameters and whose annotation covers safety, the description is nearly complete. It could still clarify whether this returns current infrastructure versus history or related resources, but the essential information is present.

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 the schema already documents page, size, and fenceId, including the reference to ncloud_datafence_get_datafence for fenceId. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: list the infrastructure of a Datafence, with a parenthetical clarifying that it includes servers and NAS. It is clear enough to distinguish from unrelated siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely related Datafence siblings such as get_fence_infra_history or list_buckets.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any stated prerequisites beyond the required fenceId in the schema. Usage is only implied by the tool name and description.

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