ncloud_head_bucket

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description goes beyond that by disclosing the HEAD-request mechanism, the headers-only return, and the observed false-positive 200 behavior on the legacy endpoint. This is genuinely additional behavioral context that helps the agent interpret results.

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?

Two sentences: one states purpose and mechanism, the other is a targeted caution with a concrete mitigation. No filler or repeated schema content.

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 single-parameter, read-only HEAD check, the description covers what it returns, the existence/permission semantics, and the main reliability caveat plus a verification path. Nothing essential for selecting or invoking this tool is missing.

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?

Input schema covers bucketName with a clear description at 100% coverage, and the description does not add format or syntax detail beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb ('Check'), resource ('Object Storage bucket'), and includes the HEAD-request/headers-only qualifier, so it is clearly distinct from bucket-listing, ACL, and object-level tools. It also alludes to the sibling ncloud_ncs_head_bucket by warning about NCS-only names, reinforcing scope.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to confirm membership with ncloud_list_buckets when in doubt, and explains why (legacy endpoint may return 200 for ncloud_ncs_* bucket names). This gives a concrete condition for delegating to an alternative.

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