ncloud_get_nat_gateway_detail

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It simply repeats that it fetches details, without disclosing what specific data is returned, any error conditions (e.g., what happens if the instance does not exist), or rate limits. With annotations already signaling the read-only nature, the description should provide additional depth but fails to do so.

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, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. It states the action and object clearly, earning a perfect score for efficiency.

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 tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but not complete. It does not describe what 'detailed information' includes, nor does it mention typical use cases or output structure. The lack of an output schema means the description should compensate, but it does not, leaving some ambiguity.

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% for the single parameter natGatewayInstanceNo, with a clear description 'NAT Gateway instance number to query'. The tool description does not add further meaning to the parameter, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents it adequately.

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 ('Get') and resource ('NAT Gateway') with scope ('specific' and 'detailed information'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like ncloud_list_nat_gateways (lists all) and ncloud_create_nat_gateway/delete_nat_gateway. It unambiguously communicates the tool's function.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used when a specific NAT Gateway instance number is known and a single entity's detailed data is needed, nor does it contrast with the list operation. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and sibling list.

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