ncloud_dataforest_check_app_name

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation. The description ('Check') aligns with this but adds no further details about behavior (e.g., what constitutes availability, response format). With no output schema, some additional transparency would be beneficial, but the annotation covers the essential safety profile.

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, non-redundant sentence with no filler. It is as concise as possible while conveying the core purpose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (quick name check), the description is mostly sufficient but omits the expected output format and usage context (e.g., recommended use before app creation). The presence of annotations partially compensates, but the lack of output schema and usage guidance leaves some gaps.

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%, with both parameters (name, accountId) already described in the schema. The description does not add any extra context about the parameters, so it meets the baseline but provides no added value.

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 'Check Data Forest app name availability and validity' clearly states the action (check) and the resource (app name). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ncloud_dataforest_check_account_name and ncloud_dataforest_create_app, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention that this tool is typically used before creating an app to validate the name, nor does it contrast with other dataforest tools. Agents lack context on alternatives.

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