ncloud_sens_list_sms_requests

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: the requirement for specific environment variables (NCLOUD_SENS_SERVICE_ID or NCLOUD_SENS_SMS_SERVICE_ID) and the 90-day data retention window. It does not contradict annotations. However, it does not mention pagination behavior despite pageSize and nextToken parameters.

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 extremely concise at two sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with a prerequisite. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 13 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the temporal constraint and required env vars but omits mention of filtering capabilities (by recipient, caller, type, status, etc.) and pagination. The schema fills many gaps, but a summary of available filters would enhance 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without additional parameter info in the description. The description does not elaborate on any parameters, leaving the schema to explain each. This is adequate but does not add value beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose: retrieving a list of SMS delivery requests. It specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'SMS message delivery request list', and adds a temporal constraint (within last 90 days). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ncloud_sens_get_sms_status (single request status) and ncloud_sens_send_sms (send).

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 to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for listing requests while ncloud_sens_get_sms_status is for checking a specific request. There is no exclusion criteria or context on when not to use it, though it does state the 90-day limit implicitly.

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