get_object

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return behavior for text vs. binary formats, which is valuable context beyond basic retrieval. However, it lacks details on error conditions, permissions required, rate limits, or whether it's read-only (implied but not stated).

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly, though the formatting with quotes might be slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (simple retrieval with 2 parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return behavior, but lacks context on usage guidelines, error handling, or integration with sibling tools, leaving some gaps.

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 significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains that 'bucket' is the bucket name and 'key' is the full key name for the object, clarifying what these parameters represent. For a tool with 2 parameters and low schema coverage, this compensates well.

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 verb 'retrieves' and the resource 'an object from VolcEngine TOS', making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like list_objects, which might also retrieve object information in a different way.

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 like list_objects. It mentions specifying the full key name but doesn't explain when this is preferable over listing objects or other operations.

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