ncloud_sourcedeploy_get_scenario

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description simply says 'Get detailed information', which is consistent with a read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation—no mention of response format, pagination, required permissions, or error cases.

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, clear sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose. It contains no redundant wording or unnecessary detail, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description could explain what 'detailed information' includes, but it does not. The tool is a simple getter with three self-explanatory parameters and a read-only annotation, making it minimally sufficient, yet it leaves expectations about the response and the hierarchical relationship between projectId, stageId, and scenarioId unexplained.

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 has 100% description coverage with each parameter (projectId, stageId, scenarioId) clearly defined. The description itself adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a specific deployment scenario', clearly indicating a read operation for a single scenario. It differentiates from sibling tools like list_scenarios by emphasizing 'specific', though it does not enumerate what the detailed information includes.

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 wording 'specific deployment scenario' implies this tool is used when you already have the scenarioId and need details, as opposed to listing scenarios. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like list_scenarios or get_stage, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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