ncloud_serverless_list_config_parameters

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it explains the meaning of 'currentValue (null = unchanged)' and the significance of 'dynamic — changeable without restart', which informs how the returned data should be interpreted. This is valuable context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and key output fields, and it ends with the endpoint. It is concise, information-dense, and every phrase earns its place. No unnecessary words 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?

Despite the lack of an output schema, the description explicitly names the fields returned (defaultValue, currentValue, allowed range/list, dynamic), which is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. Pagination and filtering are covered by the schema parameter descriptions. For a list tool with readOnlyHint, this is 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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (name, sort, pageNo, pageSize, clusterName) having detailed descriptions including patterns, defaults, and constraints. The description adds little beyond the schema—it mentions the return fields but not parameter semantics. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score 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 clearly states the action (list DB parameters), the resource (config parameters for a cluster), and the specific fields returned (defaultValue, currentValue, allowed range/list, dynamic). It also includes the endpoint. It distinguishes itself from generic list tools by naming the exact data structure, making it easy for an agent to know what this tool does.

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like ncloud_serverless_get_config or update_config. There is no mention of exclusions or related tools. The context is clear enough that an agent could infer usage, but it lacks explicit guidance on when this is the right choice.

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