ncloud_get_target_group_detail

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation, so the description doesn't contradict it. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotation—it doesn't mention what 'detailed information' includes, whether the response is paginated, or any error conditions. Since the safety profile is handled by annotations, the lack of extra behavioral detail is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 succinct sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. No filler or redundant explanation. It earns every word and is instantly scannable.

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 one-parameter read tool with readOnlyHint and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It clearly identifies the resource and action, but doesn't specify what 'detailed information' comprises (e.g., health checks, load balancer associations, protocol). This small gap prevents a 5, but it's adequate for a straightforward get-by-id operation.

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 fully documents the single parameter targetGroupNo with description 'Target group number to query', giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds little beyond the schema's 'specific target group' phrasing, merely reinforcing the need for an identifier without providing extra format, source, or prerequisite details. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get detailed information about a specific target group' uses a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific target group'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ncloud_list_target_groups (which lists all groups) and modification tools (change/create/delete). The scope is precise: a single identified target group.

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 target group' implies the caller must already know the targetGroupNo, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are given. It doesn't state that ncloud_list_target_groups should be used first to find the number, nor does it contrast with related detail tools like ncloud_get_load_balancer_detail. The usage context is only implied, not explicit.

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