ncloud_sens_list_mails

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds a valuable behavioral note that mails with only unsubscribed/blocked recipients are counted as FAILED, which is not obvious from the schema and helps the agent interpret results.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by a single caveat. Everything 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?

For a read-only list operation with a fully-described schema, the description is adequate. It includes the crucial edge case about FAILED status. While it doesn't specify the output structure, no output schema exists and the tool's purpose is clear. Slight gap in not mentioning pagination defaults, but those are covered by parameter descriptions.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It relies on the schema's thorough descriptions.

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), the resource (individual mails of a SENS mail send request), and gives the API path. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_mail_requests (which lists requests) and get_mail (which fetches a single mail) by specifying the granularity.

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 when to use this tool: when you need the individual mails for a given send request, identified by requestId. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives, but the context is clear from the verb 'List' and the resource. It doesn't mention exclusions, but for a list operation it's straightforward.

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