s3_get_buckets_via_queue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds valuable context by disclosing the asynchronous behavior—it may return a task key, indicating the result is not immediate. This is a behavioral trait beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, compact, and front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every phrase adds value: it states the operation, the queue mechanism, and the potential task-key behavior. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 one optional parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering read-only and open-world, the description covers the essential async behavior. It explains the task-key flow, which is critical for correct usage. It does not detail the normal response structure, but that is inferable from the tool name and the fact that it lists buckets/statistics/keys. Overall, it is sufficiently complete.

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 schema description covers the single parameter account_id with a note to clarify via s3_get_users. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so it relies entirely on the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 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 the action (list buckets, statistics, and access keys) and resource, and distinguishes it via the task queue mechanism. It clearly names the underlying endpoint (s3/get_buckets_rmq) and the async nature, which differentiates it from the direct s3_get_buckets sibling. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the synchronous alternative, so it's slightly below a 5.

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 a follow-up instruction: if a task key is returned, use check_task for status. This is useful guidance for the async flow. However, it does not state when to choose this tool over the direct s3_get_buckets, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions for usage. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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