bucket_info

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this as a safe read, and the '[READ]' tag reinforces it without contradicting. The description adds useful context that a single call returns multiple config domains at once, but discloses nothing about error behavior (e.g., unknown bucket), required permissions, or response shape.

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?

Front-loads the one-line purpose before the Args block, and every line is short. The Args block slightly duplicates structured schema fields, but since the schema has zero descriptions it 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?

For a read-only info tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description conveys scope, the config sections returned, and both parameters. Remaining gaps (error/failure behavior, auth requirements) are minor for this tool class.

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 0%, so the description carries the parameter burden and does so well: it explains bucket_name (and its source) and target's meaning plus the default-omission behavior. Both parameters are adequately documented, compensating for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific resource (one bucket's full config) and enumerates the config sections returned (policy, versioning, lifecycle, encryption, quota, tags), which distinguishes it as the aggregate view versus the sibling subset getters. However, it never names those siblings (bucket_policy_get, bucket_quota_get, etc.) to make the differentiation explicit.

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 parenthetical '(from bucket_ls)' gives a prerequisite cue for sourcing bucket_name, implying a workflow. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use this aggregate tool versus the narrower getters, and no exclusions or conditions are stated.

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