ncloud_livestation_list_quality_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description correctly implies a safe read operation. However, it adds no further behavioral traits (e.g., pagination behavior, result format). With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence with no extraneous words. It is efficient but could benefit from slightly more structure or context. Still, it earns a high score for conciseness.

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 the tool has no output schema and only two optional parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks information about the return format or what the quality settings represent, which would improve completeness.

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%, with both parameters having descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource 'available image quality settings for Live Station channels'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ncloud_livestation_list_channels and ncloud_livestation_get_channel, as no other tool mentions quality settings.

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 no guidance on when or why to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context such as prerequisites (e.g., need a channel) or suggestions for workflow integration (e.g., use before creating/updating a channel).

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