ncloud_pca_list_end_certs

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds minimal behavioral context. It mentions 'all' certificates but does not clarify pagination, filtering, or performance implications. For a listing tool, absence of pagination details is a gap. The description does not discuss any side effects or limitations.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the purpose and return value. It is front-loaded with no extraneous words. Every word 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 that the tool is a simple list operation with one parameter and annotations, the description is mostly adequate but could be improved. It does not specify the output format beyond 'serial numbers', and there is no output schema. In the context of many similar PCA sibling tools, it lacks cross-references or usage context. Slightly above minimal viability.

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 one required parameter caTag described as 'CA tag value'. The description adds the context that this parameter identifies the 'specific CA', which aligns with the schema. However, no additional semantics like format, constraints, or examples are provided. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already covers parameter meaning.

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 action (list), resource (end-entity certificates), and scope (issued by a specific CA). It also mentions what it returns (serial numbers). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ncloud_pca_get_end_cert (single cert retrieval) and ncloud_pca_list_cas (CA listing).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no guidance on when to choose this over other PCA listing tools or what prerequisites exist (e.g., must have caTag). It implicit implies usage for listing all certificates under a CA, but no exclusions or comparisons.

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