ncloud_get_cache_products

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and the description's 'List' verb is consistent, so there is no contradiction. With annotations already covering the safety profile, the description adds minimal behavioral context: it states the output (product codes) but nothing about pagination, result structure, or how filters interact — a notable gap given there is no output schema.

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 11-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with zero filler. No title exists, but the description is appropriately sized for a simple list operation and every word earns its place.

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 list operation with one required parameter, full schema coverage, and a read-only annotation, the description covers the essentials: the output (product codes) and the input scoping (given image). Minor gaps — no mention of how the optional filters combine and no return-shape details — are partially mitigated by the schema's parameter documentation.

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 all five parameters documented in the schema (e.g., zoneCode: 'Filter by zone code (e.g. KR-1, KR-2)', exclusionProductCode: 'Exclude a specific server spec product code'). The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the exact resource ('Cloud Cache server spec product codes'), and scopes it by input ('for a given image'). The qualifier 'server spec' implicitly differentiates it from the sibling ncloud_get_cache_image_products (which lists image products), though that sibling is not named explicitly.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ncloud_get_cache_image_products or ncloud_get_cache_target_vpcs. The use case is inferable — querying available spec codes for a chosen Cloud Cache image before provisioning — but it is only implied, not stated, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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