minio_get_object

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't describe what 'Get object content' actually returns (e.g., raw bytes, stream, metadata), whether it requires specific permissions, if there are size limitations, or how errors are handled. For a tool that presumably retrieves potentially large binary data, this lack of behavioral context is significant.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and uses clear, direct language. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete statement of purpose.

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 complexity of object retrieval operations and the absence of both annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what format the content is returned in, whether it includes metadata, if there are size limitations, or how binary data is handled. For a tool that presumably returns object content, the lack of output information is a significant gap in completeness.

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 100% description coverage, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema properties. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage, but doesn't provide any extra semantic context about parameter usage or constraints.

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 object content') and resource ('from MinIO bucket'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this as a retrieval operation rather than listing, uploading, or other bucket operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like 'minio_download_file' or 'minio_stat_object' which might also retrieve object data.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'minio_download_file', 'minio_stat_object', and 'minio_presigned_url' that might serve similar retrieval purposes, there's no indication of when this specific 'get' operation is preferred. No prerequisites, error conditions, or usage contexts are mentioned.

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