arvan_s3_generate_presigned_url

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

Annotations define false for readOnly, destructive, and idempotent hints, but the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the operation parameter. It does not disclose whether the URL generation is a read or write operation per se, nor does it cover authentication, rate limits, or side effects.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses two clear sentences without unnecessary information, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

While the tool is simple, the description lacks crucial details: it does not specify the return value (the URL itself), the effect of the 'expires_in' parameter, or how the URL should be used. As no output schema exists, the description should at minimum mention that a URL is returned.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'operation' parameter's allowed values ('get_object' for download, 'put_object' for upload), adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it neglects other parameters like 'bucket', 'key', and 'expires_in', leaving their semantics undocumented.

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's purpose: 'Generate a presigned URL for temporary access to an object.' It specifies the verb (generate) and resource (presigned URL), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like arvan_s3_get_object or arvan_s3_put_object by its unique function.

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 usage for temporary access but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., direct get/put operations). It lacks exclusion criteria or mention of sibling tools like arvan_s3_get_object.

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