bucket_quota_get

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: admin credentials are required, and a returned value of 0 means unlimited. It stops short of describing behavior when no quota is set or what happens on auth failure.

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?

Two tight lines plus an args list; the read tag, the core fact, and the prerequisite are front-loaded, and every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth prerequisite, parameter sourcing, and the meaning of the returned value. Minor gaps remain around error/empty-quota behavior, but nothing essential to calling it is missing.

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 carries the full burden, and it does: bucket_name is sourced from bucket_ls, and target is a MinIO target name from config that defaults when omitted. Both parameters are explained, though neither is given format or validation detail.

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: it reads the bucket's hard quota, and the '[READ]' tag plus the '(0 = unlimited)' clarification make the operation unambiguous. It does not explicitly name its write counterpart set_bucket_quota, so the sibling differentiation is only implied by the read tag.

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 '[READ]' marker and the admin-credential prerequisite imply when this tool applies, and the target note ('omit for the default') guides invocation. However, it never states when to prefer this over siblings such as bucket_info or set_bucket_quota, leaving the read-vs-write routing to inference.

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