ncloud_kms_decrypt

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint: true, and the description's 'Decrypt' is consistent with a read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context (e.g., supported key types, required prefix) beyond the annotations, aiding understanding of constraints.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second adds key constraints. No redundant or misleading information. Every sentence 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?

Given no output schema, the description covers key aspects: purpose, key types, ciphertext format. It does not explain the return value (decrypted plaintext) or error cases, but for a decryption tool with few parameters, this is mostly adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by specifying that only AES256/RSA2048 keys are supported and that ciphertext must include the KMS prefix, which is not explicit in the schema. This enhances parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool decrypts ciphertext using a KMS key, specifies supported key types (AES256, RSA2048), and required ciphertext format. This distinguishes it from sibling KMS tools like ncloud_kms_encrypt, ncloud_kms_sign, etc.

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 constraints on key types and ciphertext format, which guide proper use. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., encryption, reencrypt). The name helps, but explicit context would improve clarity.

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