bucket_lock_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true (echoed by the '[READ][risk=low]' tag, which is redundant). The description adds genuine behavioral value by explaining the two ambiguous return states and the consequence of each (lock never enabled/unable to enable vs WORM available with no default retention), which annotations do not convey.

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 tag and purpose before the detail, then cleanly separates the WORM distinction from the Args block. The retention explanation is slightly dense but every clause carries meaning, so nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter read with no output schema, the description does the important work of interpreting the returned lock fields (objectLockEnabled, defaultRetention) rather than just naming them. It is nearly sufficient, though it omits what happens for buckets with no lock configuration at all.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well for both params: bucket_name is sourced from bucket_ls, and target is identified as a MinIO target name with the default-omission behavior spelled out. Minor gaps remain (no format for target, no note on error when the bucket lacks lock config), keeping it below 5.

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 verb+resource with scope: the object-lock (WORM) state of a single bucket. However, it never differentiates itself from the very similar sibling object_lock_status or diagnose_retention_gaps, so an agent cannot easily tell which lock-inspection tool to pick.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no comparison to alternatives such as object_lock_status. The only routing hint is provenance for one argument ('bucket_name: from bucket_ls'), which is parameter help rather than usage guidance.

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