ncloud_ncs_head_object

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint: true, and the description mentions 'without downloading the body', which aligns with read-only behavior. However, it does not add significant detail beyond that. It does not contradict annotations. The description provides some context (storage class retrieval) but lacks details about response size or error handling.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and a key behavior (no body download). It is front-loaded with the essential verb and resource. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects) and the presence of readOnlyHint annotation, the description provides sufficient context for an agent. It covers the core behavior and the unique aspect (no body download). It could optionally mention that it returns storage class, but this is implied. The sibling tools are numerous but similar in nature, and basic guidance is there.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The tool description itself doesn't elaborate on parameters, but the schema fully documents them. Since coverage is high, baseline is 3, and the description's implication of metadata retrieval gives slight extra meaning, so a 4 is justified for adding value beyond schema.

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 clearly states the action (get metadata) and the resource (object in a Ncloud Storage bucket), and explicitly mentions it does NOT download the body, which distinguishes it from related tools like ncloud_get_object and ncloud_ncs_list_objects. This is a specific, non-tautological purpose.

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 hints at usage (checking object metadata without downloading), but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. The sibling list includes similar head/object tools (ncloud_head_object, ncloud_ncs_head_bucket) but no guidance is given for choosing among them.

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