ncloud_sens_get_brandmessage_image

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the GET endpoint is consistent but adds no new behavioral detail beyond that. The description does not disclose the response format (e.g., binary image data vs JSON metadata), error cases, or any side effects, so the agent gains little beyond the annotation.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and resource, then provides the exact endpoint. There is no filler, repetition, or extraneous information—every word 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?

Given only two parameters and a read-only annotation, the definition is minimally viable, but it leaves gaps: there is no output schema and the description does not say how the image is returned, nor does it point to ncloud_sens_list_brandmessage_images as the source for obtaining imageId. The serviceId default and error hint are helpful but live in the schema, not the tool description.

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?

Input schema description coverage is 100%: imageId is minimally described and serviceId explains default environment variables, how to find it via ncloud_sens_list_projects, and the meaning of a 'Forbidden' reply. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but with the schema so thorough, a baseline of 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 action and resource: 'Get one Brand Message image', and it includes the exact REST endpoint path with both serviceId and imageId placeholders. The singular 'one' clearly differentiates it from the sibling list tool (ncloud_sens_list_brandmessage_images).

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 via 'one' that this tool is for retrieving a single existing image, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives like listing images or deleting one. It also does not tell the agent to obtain imageId from the list operation. The serviceId schema mentions list_projects for finding the service ID, but that is not about tool selection.

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