Получение S3-хранилища

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the list of returned fields, which is useful, but it does not address the readOnlyHint=false annotation by explaining any potential side effects or clarifying why it might not be read-only. There is no explicit contradiction, but the description could be more transparent about behavior beyond retrieving data.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and then lists the returned properties. There is no redundant or extraneous content; every element adds informational value.

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 simple one-parameter get operation with no output schema, the description provides a sufficiently complete picture by listing the detailed return fields (name, type, status, class, location, hostname, access keys, disk usage, website settings). It does not cover error cases or authentication, but these are less critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 has one parameter (bucket_id) with 100% description coverage, clearly marked as required and defined as 'ID S3-хранилища' (S3 bucket ID). The main description also mentions 'по его ID' (by its ID), reinforcing the parameter's role. No additional meaning is added beyond the schema, so a baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Возвращает детальную информацию об одном S3-хранилище по его ID' (Returns detailed information about one S3 bucket by its ID). It enumerates specific returned fields (name, type, status, class, location, hostname, access keys, disk usage, website settings), distinguishing it from listing or mutation tools like list_buckets or update_bucket.

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 clear context: use this tool when you need detailed information about a single S3 bucket identified by its ID. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the singular focus and the 'by its ID' phrasing make the usage scenario evident.

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