ncloud_sourcedeploy_get_deploy_history_detail

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

The readOnlyHint annotation correctly indicates a read operation, and the description does not contradict it. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation—no mention of return format, potential errors, or what 'detailed' entails.

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 wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple read operation, though it lacks informative detail.

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?

With no output schema, the description does not explain what 'detailed information' includes, leaving the agent uncertain about the response structure. The tool is simple, but complete guidance is missing for a detail endpoint.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters (projectId, historyId) described in the schema. The description adds no extra semantic value, but the baseline for full schema coverage is 3.

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 identifies the action ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific deployment history entry'). It distinguishes from the sibling list tool by emphasizing 'specific' and 'detailed', though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus ncloud_sourcedeploy_get_deploy_history or other siblings. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or context for choosing this tool.

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