bucket_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It declares it's a READ operation via the [READ] prefix, which covers the safety profile. It does not disclose potential failure modes (e.g., behavior when bucket doesn't exist or when the user lacks permissions), return format, or pagination, but for a read-only config fetch this is reasonably adequate.

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?

Six tightly-packed sentences in the body plus a short Args block, with the READ intent front-loaded. Every line adds value — the config-facet enumeration, param sourcing, and default behavior. Zero filler or redundancy.

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 config retrieval tool with two straightforward params and no output schema, the description covers what it returns (six config facets), param sourcing, and default behavior. It could add output-format details but the tool's simplicity and the comprehensive facet list make it largely complete. No annotation or output schema to lean on, so it reasonably carries its weight.

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 must compensate. It explains bucket_name (bucket name from bucket_ls) and target (MinIO target name from config, default optional), adding sourcing context beyond the schema's bare property names. This is good but minimal — it doesn't elaborate on value formats or constraints, so it's baseline 3 rather than higher.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('read one bucket's full config') and enumerates exactly what config is returned: policy, versioning, lifecycle, encryption, quota, tags. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like bucket_ls (listing) and the individual getter tools (bucket_policy_get, bucket_versioning_get, etc.) which each fetch a single facet.

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 notes bucket_name comes 'from bucket_ls' and target comes 'from config; omit for the default', giving clear input sourcing context. It doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over the granular getter siblings, but the purpose (full config in one call) strongly implies it's the comprehensive alternative, so only slight elective-guidance is missing.

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