b2_unfinished_uploads

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the baseline burden is lower. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: it is a live listing bounded by max_uploads and an internal time budget, may truncate results on bloated buckets, and wasted_gb may be a lower bound. It also discloses that the tool recommends a lifecycle rule.

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 with no filler: use case, return metrics, invocation, and truncation caveat are each given distinct content. The most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description tells the agent what will be returned: count, oldest upload age, and wasted bytes. It also covers the key failure mode and mitigation recommendation. Combined with rich annotations, this is complete enough for correct invocation and result interpretation.

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 already documents all parameters little parameter-level meaning beyond restating that the bucket can be given by name or bucketId, which duplicates the schema. Baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Find abandoned multipart uploads that silently consume storage in a bucket.' It also includes use-case keywords like 'bucket bloat' and 'wasted storage', which help distinguish it from generic listing tools such as s3_list_multipart_uploads and from size-focused siblings like b2_largest_files.

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 gives clear invocation contexts: 'bucket bloat', 'stuck/incomplete uploads', and 'wasted storage'. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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