ncloud_get_block_storage_detail

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already discloses the read-only safety profile, so the description does not need to state that. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotation—it does not mention what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., size, status, attached server), nor does it describe response format or potential error conditions. Since there is no output schema, the description could have carried more weight here but does not.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('specific block storage instance'), with no wasted words. However, it is terse and under-specifies the value, which prevents a 5.

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 tool with one required parameter and an existing readOnly annotation, this description is minimally viable. However, with no output schema, the description could have been more complete by indicating what 'detailed information' includes or whether there are any constraints (e.g., the instance must exist). It is adequate but has clear 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%: the parameter blockStorageInstanceNo is described as 'Block storage instance number to query,' which is unambiguous. The tool description does not add extra semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is 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 'Get detailed information about a specific block storage instance' uses a specific verb ('Get detailed information'), identifies the resource ('block storage instance'), and explicitly scopes to 'a specific' instance, distinguishing it from the sibling tool ncloud_list_block_storage (which lists instances) and ncloud_get_block_storage_volume_types (which concerns volume types).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'use this when you have a blockStorageInstanceNo and need details' or 'use list_block_storage to enumerate all instances first.' The implied use case is present but not stated, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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