ncloud_ncs_get_object_retention

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction. The description adds genuine value beyond the annotation by disclosing that the tool returns configured=false when no retention is set and noting the NoSuchObjectLockConfiguration case, which helps an agent interpret 'empty' 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 dense sentences with zero filler: the purpose is front-loaded, the API reference is compact, and the meaningful edge case (configured=false) is included. Every clause earns its place.

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 tool with 3 well-documented params and no output schema, the description covers the essential return semantics (mode, retainUntilDate, and the no-retention case). It could mention behavior for a nonexistent object key, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the annotations covering its read-only nature.

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%, so key, bucketName, and versionId are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter formats or defaults, which is acceptable given the schema carries the load; baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get the Object Lock retention of an object'), names the exact return fields (mode, retainUntilDate), and references the underlying API call (GET /{key}?retention). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ncloud_ncs_put_object_retention and ncloud_ncs_get_object_lock_configuration.

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 implies when to use the tool (whenever an object's retention settings are needed) but provides no explicit guidance about alternatives. In particular, it does not distinguish itself from ncloud_ncs_get_object_lock_configuration (bucket-level vs object-level) or the related retention/legal-hold getters, so an agent must infer the right choice from naming alone.

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