ncloud_serverless_get_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral detail by specifying the return format (overrides as strings) and the scope (only changed parameters), which goes beyond the annotation. It doesn't mention potential empty results or pagination, but for a simple read with one parameter this is sufficient; it adds value without contradicting annotations.

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 sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, scope, and endpoint; the second sentence provides the alternative. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place. This is an exemplary model of conciseness.

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 tool with a single parameter fully described in the schema, a readOnlyHint annotation, and a description that explains what is returned (overrides as strings) and points to the sibling for full parameter data, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit description of the return content. It is complete in 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 coverage for the single required parameter clusterName is 100%, with a detailed description including character length, allowed characters, and immutability. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides (it only references it in the endpoint URL). Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already fully documents the parameter.

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 it gets DB parameters changed by a user on a cluster, names the exact endpoint (GET /mysql/v1/clusters/{clusterName}/config), and specifies it returns only overrides as strings. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool ncloud_serverless_list_config_parameters by explicitly directing to that tool for parameters with defaults and current values, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly says 'only overrides, as strings' and provides a clear alternative: 'For every parameter with defaults and current values use ncloud_serverless_list_config_parameters.' This gives an agent precise selection criteria and tells it exactly when to use this tool versus the sibling, with no ambiguity.

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