ncloud_sourcecommit_get_repo

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation, so the description carries a lower burden. It adds the phrase 'detailed information' to indicate the scope of the response, but it does not disclose error behavior, authentication needs, or rate limits. It is consistent with the annotation but provides minimal extra context.

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 that immediately states the action, resource, and key qualifier. It contains no superfluous words and earns its place fully.

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 read-only operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough to understand the tool's purpose. The sibling ncloud_sourcecommit_get_repo_by_id clarifies the differentiation by name, and the 'detailed information' phrase sets expectations for the return value. It does not specify exact fields or error handling, but these are not critical for this simple lookup.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the repositoryName parameter described as 'Name of the repository to query'. The tool description repeats the 'by name' qualifier but does not add new meaning, such as format constraints or how the name maps to the resource. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 it gets detailed information about a specific SourceCommit repository by name. The verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific SourceCommit repository' are specific, and the 'by name' qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling ncloud_sourcecommit_get_repo_by_id.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that ncloud_sourcecommit_get_repo_by_id should be used when the repo ID is known, nor does it reference ncloud_sourcecommit_list_repos for enumeration. The agent has to infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone.

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