ncloud_sourcecommit_get_repo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms a read operation ('Get'). However, the description does not add further behavioral details beyond what annotations provide, such as potential error conditions or the nature of the returned information.

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 conveys the essential purpose without any extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should provide some indication of what 'detailed information' includes. The vague term leaves ambiguity. For a simple read tool, it is adequate but not complete; it could mention typical fields like description, URL, etc.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter described. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema's description ('Name of the repository to query'). The phrase 'by name' is redundant with the parameter description.

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) and resource (detailed information about a specific SourceCommit repository by name). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like ncloud_sourcecommit_list_repos (list) and ncloud_sourcecommit_get_repo_by_id (get by ID) by specifying the identification method (by name).

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 usage when you know the repository name, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives like getting by ID (ncloud_sourcecommit_get_repo_by_id) or listing repos first. No when-not or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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