ncloud_sourcecommit_get_repo_by_id

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, confirming read-only operation. Description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., no mention of response structure or that it does not modify state). No contradiction with 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action and resource. No extraneous words. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 no output schema and a simple required parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, it could provide hints about the returned information (e.g., fields like name, description, URL) to compensate for missing output schema.

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%. The parameter repositoryId is documented as 'Repository ID (from repository list)'. The tool description does not add any extra semantics beyond what's in the schema, so score is baseline 3.

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?

Description clearly states action (Get detailed information), resource (specific SourceCommit repository), and method (by ID). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like ncloud_sourcecommit_get_repo (which likely uses name) and ncloud_sourcecommit_list_repos.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_repo or list_repos. The description only implies usage when a repository ID is available, but does not mention exclusions or when to choose other tools.

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