read_object_properties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds a behavioral constraint (fails on directories) beyond annotations, but lacks details on return format or error handling. The presence of an output schema reduces the need for return value explanation, but the description could better contextualize what 'properties' means.

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 two sentences with no extraneous text. The first sentence clearly states the action, and the second provides a critical limitation. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 read tool with a clear output schema and annotations, the description covers the core behavior and a key limitation. It does not explain what 'properties' includes, but given the output schema likely details that, this is acceptable. The description is largely complete for its simplicity.

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 input schema includes descriptions for both parameters (organizationId and key), achieving high coverage. The description does not add any additional semantic meaning or usage hints beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it retrieves Object Store properties for a given organization and key, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_object_store_files' by focusing on a single key, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other read operations, so a slight deduction applies.

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 one explicit usage restriction: the tool fails for directory keys. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives like 'list_object_store_files' or 'read_object_store_file_download_url', nor does it mention prerequisites or success conditions.

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