bucket_quota_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the '[READ]' nature (safe operation), the admin credential requirement, and the semantics of 0 = unlimited. While it doesn't detail the return format or error behaviors, the disclosure covers the key operational traits for an agent.

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—two lines of purpose plus two parameter bullets. Every sentence adds value, and the READ tag plus quota semantics are front-loaded. Zero wasted words.

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 simple 2-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, credential requirements, parameter sources, and the 0=unlimited semantic. It doesn't explain the return value format, but for a simple quota getter that's reasonably inferable. Adequate coverage for the tool's complexity.

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 provides guidance for both parameters: bucket_name comes from bucket_ls (source hint) and target can be omitted for default. However, it doesn't explain the target format beyond 'MinIO target name from config', which is fairly self-explanatory. The description adds moderate value over the raw schema.

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 '[READ] The bucket's hard quota (0 = unlimited)' with a specific verb (get) and resource (bucket quota). It distinguishes from siblings like set_bucket_quota by explicitly marking it as READ, and the name bucket_quota_get clearly differentiates from bucket_info, bucket_policy_get, and other bucket-related getters.

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 the admin credentials requirement ('Needs admin credentials'), which is important usage context. It also indicates bucket_name comes from bucket_ls and target can be omitted for the default. It doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use this vs alternatives, but the credential requirement and clear purpose provide adequate context.

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