read_object_properties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that it 'doesn't work if the key is a directory,' which is not covered by annotations. However, it doesn't provide additional details like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, so it only partially enhances transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first and a critical limitation added in a second sentence. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 (read operation with specific constraints), annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete. It adds key behavioral context (directory limitation) but could benefit from more usage guidance relative to siblings.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by clarifying that parameters are for 'a specific organization and key.' It doesn't elaborate on parameter formats or constraints beyond this. Since there's only one parameter (a nested object with two fields), the baseline is reasonable, but more detail could improve utility.

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: 'Get Object Store properties of a specific organization and key.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('Object Store properties'), and scope ('specific organization and key'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_object_store_file_download_url' or 'list_object_store_files', which prevents a perfect score.

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 some usage guidance with the statement: 'It doesn't work if the key is a directory in the Object Store.' This implies when not to use the tool. However, it doesn't offer explicit alternatives or clarify when to use this tool versus similar siblings, leaving some ambiguity.

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