bucket_policy_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. It labels the tool with '[READ]' and mentions output includes a JSON verbatim copy plus a summary, which is some transparency. However, it doesn't disclose failure modes (e.g., what happens for a missing policy, whether it errors on non-existent buckets), auth permission requirements, or behavior when the bucket has no policy set.

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 compact - a one-line summary plus clear args documentation. Every sentence earns its place, and the args info is well-structured. No padding 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 tool with 2 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it returns and how to fill the args. It's not fully complete - it omits what happens when no policy exists, whether deleting a policy is a prerequisite, and any permission details for a likely restricted admin operation. But it's adequate for basic invocation.

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 does provide useful context for both parameters: 'bucket_name from bucket_ls' and 'target: MinIO target name from config; omit for default.' This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though it doesn't explain value formats or constraints beyond what arg names imply.

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 it reads a bucket's policy JSON and provides an anonymous-access summary - a specific verb (READ) plus resource (bucket policy) and additional output detail. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling get tools (bucket_lifecycle_get, bucket_versioning_get, bucket_quota_get) but the bucket_policy target is self-evident from the name, so the purpose is clear.

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 implies read-only usage without alternative tool mentions. It provides arg usage context ('bucket_name from bucket_ls', 'target from config') that helps invocation but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. other get tools or when not to use it. The 'omit for default' guidance for target is useful.

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