ncloud_ncs_get_object_lock_configuration

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, and the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond it: the response semantics (configured=false for unlocked buckets) and the underlying 404 ObjectLockConfigurationNotFoundError, which tells the agent not to treat a missing configuration as an error.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with scope and the endpoint, then the return shape. Every clause earns its place and nothing is redundant with the name or schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so fully: enabled/disabled status, default retention mode and duration, plus the configured=false fallback. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this read correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single bucketName parameter, so the schema already carries the parameter's meaning. The description adds no format or naming detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline when structured fields do the work.

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 (Get) and resource (the Object Lock/WORM configuration of a bucket), and disambiguates scope by naming the exact API endpoint (GET /?object-lock) and the bucket-level nature. It also previews what is returned (enabled flag plus default retention mode + days/years), so an agent can distinguish it from the object-level retention siblings.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description covers the 'bucket has no Object Lock' case and explains the 404 behavior, but never says when to reach for this tool versus the put/set counterpart or the per-object retention tools. No explicit when/when-not guidance is present.

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