ncloud_ncs_get_object_legal_hold

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the response format (ON | OFF) and the important edge case that configured=false is returned when no legal hold setting exists. This helps an agent interpret results correctly.

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 with no filler: the product area is front-loaded, followed by the operation, endpoint, and return behavior. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 read-only getter with fully documented required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned, including the unset case. An agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 provides 100% coverage for bucketName, key, and versionId, so the schema already documents parameter semantics. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but none is needed because the schema descriptions are complete. 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the Object Lock legal hold status of an object.' It also includes the exact HTTP endpoint (GET /{key}?legal-hold) and return values (ON | OFF), making the operation unambiguous and distinct from related object-lock tools like get_object_retention or put_object_legal_hold.

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 makes the tool's domain and purpose clear, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over related object-lock operations or name alternatives. Usage context is implied rather than stated, and there is no misleading guidance.

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