bucket_lifecycle_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The '[READ]' prefix signals this is a non-destructive operation, and it discloses the null-return behavior when no lifecycle is set. However, it doesn't describe pagination, error cases (e.g., nonexistent bucket), or return format details, leaving gaps for a read operation with zero annotation coverage.

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 concise and efficient, using a docstring format with a one-line purpose and two parameter explanations. No wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter read operation.

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 straightforward read operation with 2 simple params, no output schema, and no nested objects, the information provided is mostly adequate. It covers the purpose, the null return case, parameter provenance, and default behavior. However, given zero annotation coverage and no output schema, the description could do more to describe expected return structure or error conditions, especially since sibling tools like bucket_policy_get and bucket_versioning_get exist with similar patterns.

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 adds meaning to both parameters: bucket_name is sourced from bucket_ls, and target is the MinIO target name from config with a default behavior. This adds useful context beyond the schema, though the descriptions are brief and don't elaborate on formats or validation constraints.

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 it reads the bucket's lifecycle rules, with a specific verb ('read') and resource ('bucket's lifecycle rules'). It also notes the null return when no lifecycle is set, which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like set_lifecycle or delete_lifecycle, though the '[READ]' prefix and resource naming make the differentiation fairly obvious.

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 states 'bucket_name' comes 'from bucket_ls', which gives a clear source hint for the parameter. It also notes 'target' is optional and can be omitted for the default. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., 'use set_lifecycle to modify, this to read'), nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the bucket_ls provenance hint.

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