object_lock_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly labels the operation as [READ][risk=low], states the report nature, and explains the independent stacking of retention and legal hold. This goes beyond a simple one-liner, though it does not disclose details like error behavior or return format, keeping it just shy of a 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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded: a tag line, a clear purpose statement, a behavioral note, and then a concise Arg list. Every sentence carries necessary information with no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a 4-parameter read-only tool.

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?

The description is adequate for a read-only status tool, covering purpose, parameter semantics, and key behavioral nuance. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally hint at the return value, and it does mention 'reports whether deletable and what blocks it,' but it does not elaborate on possible blockers or error cases. Overall, it is complete enough for the tool's simplicity, but not exhaustive.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter in the Args section. It tells where to obtain bucket_name and object_name (from other tools), clarifies that version_id selects a specific version with omission meaning current, and explains target as a MinIO target with a default. This adds significant meaning beyond 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 that the tool reports whether an object version is deletable and what blocks it. The phrase 'Retention + legal hold for one object version' and 'Reports whether the version is deletable right now and what blocks it' uses a specific verb (reports) and resource (object version), fully distinguishing it from sibling setter tools like set_object_retention and set_legal_hold.

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 the tool is used to check lock status (e.g., before deletion) but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternative tools. It explains the behavioral nuance of independent stacking, but lacks explicit guidance such as 'use this to inspect before modifying locks' or 'instead of diagnose_retention_gaps for this specific object version.' Usage context is implied rather than expressly stated.

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