ncloud_head_bucket

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, specifying that this is a HEAD request that returns headers only and that it checks both existence and permission. This informs the agent about the lightweight nature and expected output without contradicting the annotation.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and appends essential technical detail in parentheses. Every word contributes value, with no redundant phrasing or tangential information.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the behavioral contract: it performs a HEAD request, returns headers only, and indicates existence/permission. It doesn't detail specific status codes, but that's not required for such a straightforward check.

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 schema already documents the only parameter, bucketName, as 'Name of the bucket to check,' achieving 100% coverage. The description's reference to 'bucket' adds no additional format, constraints, or semantics beyond what the schema provides, so 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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('bucket'), clearly stating that it verifies existence and access permissions. The parenthetical '(HEAD request, returns headers only)' further distinguishes it from sibling operations like list_buckets or get_bucket_acl, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need a lightweight check for bucket existence and permission. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the HEAD request semantics and focus on permission provide clear context, and there are no misleading exclusions.

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