bucket_versioning_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. The [READ] tag and 'state' language imply a safe read operation, but it doesn't disclose what happens if the bucket doesn't exist, whether it errors on missing versioning configuration, or what the exact return format is. For a simple read tool this is a moderate gap, and [READ] partially compensates for the missing annotations.

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 and efficient, using a clear [READ] tag followed by a single-sentence purpose and short Args section. Every sentence earns its place. Could arguably be trimmed further, but it's lean and well-organized.

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-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential usage (what it reads, where bucket_name comes from, optional target). However, since there are no annotations and no output schema, the description could add more about the return value structure or behavior for missing buckets. It's adequate but leaves the actual output format unspecified.

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 parameters (bucket_name, target) are undocumented in the schema. The description's Args section explains bucket_name comes from bucket_ls and target is a MinIO target name to omit for default, which adds useful context. However, the description directly echoes what the schema names already convey and doesn't add format/enum details for the versioning states beyond the three possible values listed.

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 reads a bucket's versioning state with specific verb+resource ('The bucket's versioning state: Enabled / Suspended / Off') and the [READ] prefix clarifies it's a read operation. It's differentiated from siblings like set_versioning (which writes) by the read context, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.

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 this is a read/get operation on a bucket's versioning, distinguishing it from set_versioning which modifies. It includes the useful hint that bucket_name comes from bucket_ls (stating a prerequisite source). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. sibling versioning tools like set_versioning or bucket_info.

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