ncloud_ncs_get_object_lock_configuration

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses a critical behavioral trait: when the bucket has no Object Lock, it returns configured=false instead of surfacing ObjectLockConfigurationNotFoundError. It also explains the returned content (enabled flag plus retention mode/duration) and documents the S3 shape and live-endpoint verification, which is valuable context absent from the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: main purpose and return content first, error behavior second, provenance note last. The provenance sentence is slightly extra but earns its place given the missing official documentation and the confirmation of the read path. No filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the endpoint, what the tool returns, the no-Object-Lock behavior, and the confidence level of the implementation. Since there is no output schema, this description carries the full burden of explaining return semantics, and it does so completely.

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 coverage is 100%: the sole required parameter bucketName is already fully described in the schema as 'Name of the Ncloud Storage bucket'. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but none is necessary for this single simple parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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'), resource ('Object Lock (WORM) configuration of a Ncloud Storage bucket'), and the exact API endpoint ('GET /?object-lock'). It clearly distinguishes this read-only WORM inspection tool from sibling tools like ncloud_ncs_put_object_lock_configuration and other bucket-config getters.

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 use case is implied clearly: use this to inspect whether Object Lock is enabled and what default retention applies. However, the description never names alternatives or conditions for choosing a different tool, such as ncloud_ncs_put_object_lock_configuration for modifying the configuration. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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