ncloud_sourcebuild_get_project

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the read-only nature, which the description aligns with ('Get'). The description adds minimal extra context (e.g., 'detailed information') but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as return format or potential not-found conditions. Since annotations already cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 redundant words. It is appropriately concise for a tool with one parameter and clear purpose, earning full marks.

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 a simple contract (one parameter, no output schema) and the description sufficiently conveys the operation. It could mention details about the returned data, but 'detailed information' covers this reasonably well. The presence of readOnlyHint and a self-explanatory parameter makes the description nearly complete for the tool's complexity.

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% for the sole parameter (projectId), so the schema already documents its meaning. The description does not add any further syntax or value beyond identifying the project, so the baseline score of 3 holds.

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') and resource ('detailed information about a specific SourceBuild project'), making it distinct from the sibling tool ncloud_sourcebuild_list_projects and the build history getter. It is a specific verb+resource statement with no ambiguity.

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 phrase 'specific SourceBuild project' clearly implies this is for retrieving details of a single project, given its one required projectId parameter. It provides clear context without explicitly naming alternatives, which is sufficient for a get-type tool.

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