ncloud_list_maintenances

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest of the behavioral load. It discloses pagination, the mandatory filter semantics, the 31-day range limit, the allowed timeType values' role, and the automatic default window – all important operational traits not present in the annotations. It stops short of describing response shape or error behavior.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the filter requirement, then the fallback default. No filler; every sentence conveys an actionable fact.

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 read-only, paged list tool with no output schema and full schema documentation, the description covers the critical invocation constraints and default behavior. It is nearly complete; only return-value characteristics remain unspecified, which is acceptable given the absence of an output schema.

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 the per-parameter baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful combinatorial semantics beyond the individual field docs: from/to/timeType must be used together, resourceId must be paired with productKey instead of a time range, and the default window is computed on startTime. This is genuine added value over the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get the list of planned maintenance schedules in Cloud Insight'. This is clearly a list operation, distinguishing it from siblings like ncloud_get_maintenance_detail, ncloud_create_maintenance, ncloud_update_maintenance, and ncloud_delete_maintenance. The scoping note '(paged)' further narrows the intent.

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?

Explicitly explains the filtering contract: a time range (from/to/timeType, max 31 days) OR a resource (resourceId+productKey), with a documented default 30-day window by startTime when neither is supplied. That is strong when-to-use guidance for invocation, though it does not contrast this tool against get_maintenance_detail or other siblings.

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