QuantConnect

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with this by describing a read operation ('Get'). It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the constraint that it fails for directory keys, which is crucial for correct usage. No rate limits, auth needs, or destructive effects are mentioned, but the added constraint justifies a score above baseline.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a critical constraint. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, with no wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, read-only), annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists (implying return values are documented elsewhere), the description is reasonably complete. It includes key behavioral constraints and purpose, though it could benefit from more context on when to use this over siblings. Overall, it meets most needs without being 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining that parameters are for a specific organization and key, clarifying their roles. It doesn't detail format or examples beyond what the schema provides (e.g., organizationId as a string). With one parameter (a nested object), the description adds some meaning but not exhaustive details, meeting the baseline for moderate coverage.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('Object Store properties'), specifying it's for a specific organization and key. It distinguishes from siblings like 'read_object_store_file_download_url' or 'list_object_store_files' by focusing on properties retrieval rather than file content or listing. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar tools, keeping it at 4 instead of 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 description provides an implicit usage guideline by stating 'It doesn't work if the key is a directory,' which helps avoid misuse. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance compared to alternatives like 'read_object_store_file_download_url' or general context for why to retrieve properties over other operations. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned beyond the directory limitation.

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