ncloud_sourcebuild_get_build_history

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Get' is consistent with that. However, the description adds no behavioral details beyond what annotations already provide, such as pagination, ordering, or the structure of the returned history.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and contains no filler. It is as concise as possible while still conveying the essential purpose.

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?

Given the simple interface (one required parameter), the readOnly annotation, and the clear naming, the description is adequate for an agent to understand what the tool does. A minor gap is the lack of any indication of what fields appear in the history, but the tool name and purpose make this mostly self-evident.

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 fully documents the only parameter 'projectId' with a clear description. The tool description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 action ('Get'), the resource ('build history'), and the scope ('for a SourceBuild project'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like ncloud_sourcebuild_get_project (project details) and ncloud_sourcebuild_list_projects (all projects).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for reviewing past builds or that project details can be fetched using ncloud_sourcebuild_get_project. Intended usage is implied but not contrasted with other tools.

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