ncloud_sourcedeploy_get_sourcebuild_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with that. It adds context that the list is scoped to projects 'available for scenario source configuration,' but it does not describe response shape, pagination, or other behavioral details. This is adequate but not rich given the simple read-only nature.

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 filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and context.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list operation with a clear purpose, the description is complete enough. It states what is returned and why, and the absence of an output schema is not a significant gap for such a simple tool.

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 zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because there are no parameters to document.

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 a specific verb ('Get the list') and clearly identifies the resource ('available SourceBuild projects') and the purpose ('for scenario source configuration'). It distinguishes this tool from generic SourceBuild list tools like ncloud_sourcebuild_list_projects by scoping it to scenario source configuration.

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 clearly states the context in which the tool is used ('for scenario source configuration'), which is explicit enough to guide basic selection. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or name alternative tools for similar purposes, leaving some ambiguity among sibling tools.

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