ncloud_ses_get_server_specs

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

Annotations already mark the call as read-only, and the description adds a meaningful behavioral trait: passing a G2 code will be rejected, not silently accepted. It also conveys the G3/KVM-only hard constraint on the API. No output-format details are given, but that is secondary for a simple read-only list.

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 carry only essential information: what the tool returns and the critical input constraint. Purpose is front-loaded, and the constraint sentence earns its place by preventing a common mistake.

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 single-parameter, read-only list operation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and validation rule. The schema covers the parameter's provenance, so nothing critical is missing. It could optionally name the G3 image source tool directly, but that is already in the schema description.

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%, so the schema already documents the parameter as a G3 OS image code and its source. The description adds the rejection behavior for G2 codes, which clarifies the allowed values and failure mode beyond the schema. This extra nuance justifies a small bump above the baseline of 3.

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 clear verb ('Get'), resource ('available node server types'), and scope ('for Search Engine Service (G3/KVM only)'), which separates it from generic compute spec tools and from SES product tools. It also references ncloud_ses_get_os_products to clarify the G3/G2 distinction. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from close siblings like ncloud_ses_get_node_products, so 4 rather than 5.

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 an explicit when-not rule: a G2 image code from ncloud_ses_get_os_products is rejected, so an agent should not call this with a G2 product code. It also implies the correct input source by requiring a G3 code. It doesn't spell out a full workflow or alternatives for G2, leaving some inference to the agent.

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