get_from_object_store

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape ('String representation of the object or of the value at path'), which is valuable given there is no output schema. But it omits failure behavior (missing id, invalid path), any permission/auth requirements, and any side-effect statement for this read operation.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then progressively adds the id mode, the path mode, and parameter docs. The JSON example is worth its space; the format is efficient overall, with only minor redundancy between the prose path explanation and the `:param path:` line.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials (what it returns, both parameter formats), which is more than minimal. But it stops short of error/edge-case behavior and any resource-identification guidance for deciding between this and the other object-store tools.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: it specifies the id format (`@obj_001`) and two accepted path syntaxes (`access.to.attr` and `["access"]["to"]["attr"]`) with a concrete example. This meaningfully compensates for the undocumented schema, though the empty-string default for `path` is never explained.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('fetch an object from the object store') and immediately operationalizes it with two retrieval modes. It is clear on its own, but never names the adjacent siblings (get_slice_from_object_store, sed_object_store, grep_object_store) to draw the boundary, so an agent still has to infer which store tool applies.

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 explains the two ways to call it (by id, or by id plus nested path with a worked example), which is genuine usage guidance. However, it gives no when-to-use vs the many store siblings and no exclusions, so the routing decision is only implied.

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