ncloud_list_ips_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms a read operation ('List'). No additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination details, rate limits) are disclosed beyond the annotation, so the description adds minimal value here.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and adds a key constraint, making it easy to parse.

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 could explain return values or pagination behavior. It does not, but it does state the service prerequisite. The tool has 11 parameters, and the description provides no guidance on how to use them effectively for filtering.

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%, so the input schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add any additional parameter-level details beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage but not compensating further.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'IPS intrusion prevention events' within the context of 'Security Monitoring'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'ncloud_list_av_events', 'ncloud_list_ids_events', etc., by specifying IPS.

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 mentions a critical constraint: 'Only for users subscribed to the Security Monitoring service.' This helps agents understand prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for other event types.

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