ncloud_mailer_get_template_structure

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation (which is consistent with GET), the description adds meaningful behavioral details: the response is a tree, template nodes have isCategory=false, and how to use the sid. This goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent interpret the returned data correctly.

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 well-structured: it front-loads the critical legacy/deprecation warning, then gives the operation. It's informative without excessive fluff, though the legacy note is lengthy. The key operational detail (isCategory=false) is included. Overall it's concise and effective.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description should explain the return structure more fully. It mentions the tree and the isCategory flag, but does not describe category nodes, pagination, sorting, or other fields. For a tree-returning GET, an agent needs more to fully understand the response. The description provides essential but incomplete context.

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%: both isUse and region are fully described in the input schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what's already in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema carries the load.

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 explicitly states 'Get the category/template tree (GET /template)' with a specific verb and resource, and clarifies that template nodes have isCategory=false and to use sid as templateSid. This is a clear, unambiguous purpose that differentiates the tool from mail sending/lookup operations and other siblings.

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 strong usage context: it's a legacy API only for migrated projects, with a ~12-month availability window. It also points to new tools (ncloud_sens_send_mail / ncloud_sens_list_mail_requests) for mail sending/lookup. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over an alternative for the same template-structure purpose, though that may not exist. The context is clear enough to guide usage.

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