minio_presigned_url

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 tool generates a URL but doesn't explain what a 'presigned URL' entails (e.g., temporary access, authentication bypass, or security implications). It mentions 'download' but doesn't clarify if this is read-only, if it modifies data, or what happens on failure. For a tool with potential security/access implications, this is a significant gap.

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: 'Generate a presigned URL for object download'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that generates URLs (which may have security/access implications), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., URL string, error handling), behavioral traits like idempotency or side effects, or how it differs from siblings. For a 3-parameter tool in a context-rich server, more context is needed.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (bucket_name, object_name, expires). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain URL generation logic or default expiration). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 tool's purpose: 'Generate a presigned URL for object download'. It specifies the verb ('Generate') and resource ('presigned URL'), but doesn't distinguish it from potential alternatives like 'minio_get_object' or 'minio_download_file' which might serve similar download purposes. The description is accurate but lacks sibling differentiation.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., bucket/object existence), compare it to siblings like 'minio_download_file' (direct download) or 'minio_get_object' (object retrieval), or specify scenarios where a presigned URL is preferred over direct access. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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