Retrieve an object

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

The description adds useful behavioral details not in annotations: automatic decryption of encrypted objects and condition for inline vs. file return. However, it does not mention error cases like missing keys or decryption failures.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second adds critical behavioral context. No filler words.

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 simple nature of the tool and supportive annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description covers key aspects: purpose, encryption, and return behavior. It does not address error conditions or permission requirements, but these are acceptable omissions for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that local_path is used for non-small-text objects. This clarifies the parameter's role, especially since schema coverage is only 50% (only local_path has a description).

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 retrieves an object and provides details on decryption and return behavior. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools 'usage' and 'put', which could help agent choose among them.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only usage hint is 'pass local_path for anything else', which is parameter-level advice, not tool selection guidance.

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