ncloud_get_object_acl

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

The annotation already declares readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to reiterate that it is read-only. However, no additional behavioral context is provided (e.g., potential errors, authentication requirements, effects of missing objects). Given the annotation covers the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, clear sentence with no extraneous information. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient. However, it could be slightly expanded to include key context (e.g., response format) without harming conciseness.

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 no output schema, and the description does not explain what the response contains (e.g., the ACL structure). For a simple GET operation, this might be sufficient, but additional context about the expected return format would improve completeness. The description is adequate but not enriched.

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 bucketName and objectName are documented in the schema). The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is correct.

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 tool retrieves the ACL of an object in Object Storage. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('ACL of an object'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ncloud_get_bucket_acl (bucket-level) and ncloud_put_object_acl (write operation). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other GET-based object tools (e.g., ncloud_get_object), which slightly reduces clarity.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage when needing to read an object's ACL, but given many similar tools (e.g., get_bucket_acl, put_object_acl), the agent would benefit from contextual hints about when to choose this over others.

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