ncloud_functions_get_action

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the read-only nature. The description adds that the response includes source code, which is valuable context beyond annotations. However, it does not describe the return structure, pagination, or any other behavioral traits, so it only partially enhances transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the tool's purpose and key output detail ('including source code') efficiently, making every word earn 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values. 'Detailed information' is vague, and only the inclusion of source code is specified. The description also does not mention that both packageName and actionName are needed to identify the action, though the schema requires them. Overall, it is minimally complete but has clear gaps.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (platform, actionName, packageName). The description does not reference parameters or add any meaning beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 tool 'Get[s] detailed information about a specific action including source code', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from list_actions (which would not return a single action's source code) and other get_* siblings by emphasizing 'specific action' and 'source code'.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving detailed information about one specific action, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like list_actions, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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