lifecycle_gap_analysis

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. '[READ]' prefix explicitly signals read-only operation, which is valuable given many siblings are mutation tools (set_lifecycle, bucket_delete, etc.). Discloses that it produces a cause + action analysis with reclaimable estimate. Would benefit from noting it performs network calls to list buckets, but overall disclosure is good.

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?

Compact and front-loaded with the '[READ]' tag and one-line summary before the Args block. The three gap categories are enumerated cleanly. The trailing 'Args' section adds marginal value since it partially restates schema, but the space cost is low. Efficient overall.

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 analysis tool with 2 simple params, the description covers the core: output type (per-bucket gaps), the three gap kinds, reclaimable estimate, cause + action. No output schema exists, so some description of return richness would help, but the enumerated gap types give the agent enough to interpret results. Slightly incomplete on output format details.

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 description must compensate. It explains both params ('limit: maximum buckets to analyze', 'target: MinIO target name from config'), which is genuinely useful. However, description falls to the score-2 level because limit's default semantics and target's fallback behavior are only minimally explained; target says 'omit for the default' but doesn't clarify what the default is. Slight improvement over nothing but still thin.

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?

Specific verb ('finds') + resource ('ILM gaps per bucket') + clear scope. Distinct from siblings: it's an analysis tool that identifies lifecycle gaps (no noncurrent expiry, incomplete multipart no-abort rules, no lifecycle at all) rather than a status check or configuration action. Clearly differentiates from get/set lifecycle tools.

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?

Describes what conditions trigger use (detecting stale bytes, invisible space from incomplete multipart, missing lifecycle) through enumerated gap categories. Doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the three specific gap scenarios make when-to-use clear. No explicit when-not-to-use, but context is reasonably established.

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