ncloud_wms_list_monitors

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the returned fields and the enum semantics of monitoringType (URL | SCENARIO) and serviceYn (active/paused), which is valuable since no output schema exists. It omits pagination or result-count behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action verb first and the returned field list after the colon. Nothing is wasted or repeated from structured data.

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?

With no output schema present, the description's enumeration of return fields carries the missing documentation, which is the right call. It lacks any note on result volume or pagination, which is a minor gap for a no-param list tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-filter, list-everything call.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (WMS monitoring scenarios/monitors) and enumerates the exact fields returned, which lets an agent distinguish it from the singular ncloud_wms_get_monitor. It stops short of naming siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative. The word 'all' faintly implies an unfiltered enumeration, but there is no explicit condition for choosing this over ncloud_wms_get_monitor or the other WMS siblings.

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