diagnose_retention_gaps

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest and does add real context: failing buckets surface in bucketErrors rather than being silently dropped, and the envelope reports truncation when limit is hit. It does not describe cost, per-bucket probe behavior, or rate/size constraints, keeping it below 5.

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-loaded with the read/risk tag and a one-line purpose, followed by dense but relevant detail on finding types and error handling. The prose is slightly embellished ('the capacity never returns', 'rather than a house style') but each sentence conveys selection-relevant behavior, so little 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the finding categories, the bucketErrors envelope field, and the truncation signal. For a two-param read-only diagnostic, the agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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, and the Args block documents both parameters: limit is the max findings (with truncation signal in the envelope) and target is a MinIO config name with omission meaning default. This is meaningful beyond the raw schema, though it stops short of describing the limit's default behavior or range.

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: diagnosing WORM/retention gaps across every bucket, returned worst-first. It even enumerates the exact contradiction classes it finds (lock with no default retention, lifecycle expiry vs. retention, object lock without versioning), which makes the scope unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the very similar sibling lifecycle_gap_analysis, so it stops short of a 5.

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][risk=low]' tag and 'worst-first' ordering imply an audit/diagnostic use case, and the note about bucketErrors implies it is a sweep rather than a single-bucket check. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not statement and no pointer to alternatives such as lifecycle_gap_analysis or bucket_exposure_audit.

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