Retrieve an object

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing that encrypted objects are automatically decrypted with the local key, that retrieval fails on machines lacking the key, and that small text objects return inline while local_path forces file output. These are critical behavioral traits not available anywhere else.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying operational weight; the action is front-loaded and no filler is present. Slight redundancy with the title ('Retrieve an object') keeps it from a perfect score, but the structure is tight and scannable.

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 two-parameter read tool, the description covers the main traps: encryption, key locality, inline vs file output. It does not specify what happens when a non-small object is requested without local_path, nor the key's format, but annotations and the simple schema cover most of what an agent needs.

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 coverage is 50%; local_path has a schema description, and the description reinforces the inline-versus-path behavior-controlled decision. However, key remains semantically bare – the description never explains what a valid key is or where it comes from, so parameter semantics are only partially enriched.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Retrieve an object'. It is not a tautology because it adds detail about encryption and inline versus file output, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as ls or put.

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 implies when to use the tool (retrieving stored objects) and gives concrete parameter usage ('pass local_path for anything else'), but it never states when not to use it or names an alternative tool. The guidance is functional but selection context is left largely implicit.

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