ncloud_ses_get_upgrade_progress

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read operation, and the description does not contradict it. The description adds that the resource is 'version upgrade progress' for an SES cluster, but it does not describe what the response contains, whether it can be polled, or what happens when no upgrade is in progress. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds modest but not rich behavioral context.

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 focused sentence: 'Get version upgrade progress for a Search Engine Service cluster'. It is front-loaded with the action verb, contains no redundant phrasing, and every word 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 simple two-parameter getter with a readOnly annotation, the schema and annotation cover the invocation basics. However, with no output schema, the description does not clarify what 'progress' looks like in the response, and it omits any temporal context such as the tool being relevant only after an upgrade has been initiated. These are gaps for an agent trying to use the result correctly.

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%, and both parameters already have meaningful descriptions in the input schema: 'Region number (from ncloud_get_regions)' and 'Cluster instance number'. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level context beyond this, so it does not need to compensate. Baseline 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 states a clear verb+resource: 'Get version upgrade progress for a Search Engine Service cluster'. It is specific enough to know this is a read operation on SES upgrade progress, and the term 'progress' differentiates it from the sibling ncloud_ses_upgrade_version which triggers an upgrade. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast against sibling tools, so it stops just short of full differentiation.

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?

Usage context is implied but not stated explicitly. The name and description suggest this is used to monitor an in-progress version upgrade, likely after calling ncloud_ses_upgrade_version, but there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance and no mention of alternatives such as ncloud_ses_precheck_upgrade or ncloud_cdss_upgrade_status. An agent must infer the intended call sequence.

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