nacos_get_namespace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context about public namespace normalization across versions ('传 'public' 或空串都可查到，底层统一用空串') and version-specific endpoint behavior, which goes beyond 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 well-structured with clear topic sentences and bullet-pointed version details. It is moderately concise, though it somewhat duplicates normalization info already in the schema. Overall, every sentence contributes to understanding.

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?

The tool has a rich output schema and strong annotations. The description provides sufficient context for a single-parameter read operation, including version compatibility, normalization behavior, and return value summary. Missing edge-case behavior (e.g., not found) but not critical for a read-only tool with this simplicity.

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 the baseline is 3. The tool description repeats normalization information already present in the schema's parameter description (priority, 'public' handling). It does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already covers.

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 '查询单个命名空间详情' (query single namespace details), which is a specific verb+resource action. It distinguishes from sibling 'nacos_list_namespaces' by focusing on a single namespace and mentions returning quota and usage details.

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 context is clear: this tool is for retrieving a single namespace's details. It provides version-specific API notes (v1/v2/v3) and mentions that v1 uses a filtered list simulation, implicitly differentiating from the list tool. However, it lacks an explicit 'use this instead of list_namespaces' statement or exclusion criteria.

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