bucket_lock_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly declares this as a read operation with low risk, and importantly explains the semantic difference between two similar-looking states, which is valuable behavioral context. It does not discuss permissions or error conditions, but for a read-only config inspection the added nuance is substantial.

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 well-structured with a lead tag, a clear definition, a helpful nuance explanation, and an Args section. Every sentence contributes useful information, though the two-absence explanation may be slightly long. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description covers the essential return semantics by explaining the two possible absence states. It also mentions both parameters and their origins. It lacks details like error handling or full return structure, but for a simple read operation the provided context is sufficient.

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%, but the description fully compensates. bucket_name is defined as coming from bucket_ls, which helps the agent understand the correct value source. target is explained as a MinIO target name with a default omission behavior. Both parameters are given meaningful usage context beyond their raw schema definitions.

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 object-lock (WORM) state of a specific bucket, and it highlights a key nuance between two absence states. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool object_lock_status, which may have similar purpose, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: when you need to understand the precise lock state and distinguish between 'never enabled' and 'enabled but no default retention'. It also gives usage details for the target parameter. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the rationale is strong enough to guide appropriate use.

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