ncloud_sens_list_brandmessage_images

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds useful supplementary context: images are retained for 1 year, and uploads are multipart and must be done in the console. This exceeds annotation coverage and informs the agent of operational constraints, though it does not discuss pagination 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?

The description is two concise sentences: the first states the purpose and lists returned fields, the second adds retention and upload constraints. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary detail.

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?

The description, combined with the schema and annotations, covers the essential aspects for an agent to call the tool: it lists the action, fields, parameters (in schema), and adds operational context (retention, upload method). It does not explicitly state the response structure, but the listed fields imply a list, and pagination is handled via schema parameters. It is reasonably complete.

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 detailed descriptions for pageSize, pageIndex, and serviceId. The description does not add further parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('images uploaded for Brand Messages'), and provides the endpoint and returned fields. It also lists the enum values for imageType, which helps distinguish this from other Sens tools that deal with requests or templates.

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 implies usage by being a listing operation, but it does not explicitly mention alternative tools like get_brandmessage_image or delete_brandmessage_image, nor when to choose this over them. It does provide context about image retention and that uploads must be done in the console, which partially guides usage, but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance.

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