get_object_storage_bucket_replication

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Get', implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., returns 404 if bucket doesn't exist), prerequisites, or the format of the returned configuration. This is minimal transparency for a tool with no 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 a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the key action and object, with no extraneous words. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is a simple getter with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the basic purpose, but given the presence of many sibling tools for different bucket configurations, it could be more complete by specifying what the replication configuration includes or how it differs from other configurations. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 100% (one parameter 'bucket' with a clear description). The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it simply restates 'the name of the object storage bucket'. According to the guideline, baseline is 3, and no extra value is provided, so score remains 3.

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 it gets the replication configuration for an Object Storage bucket. The verb 'Get' and resource 'replication configuration' are specific, distinguishing it from siblings like get_object_storage_bucket_encryption or get_object_storage_bucket_versioning. However, it lacks additional context that would make it a 5, such as scope or constraints.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many similar getters for different bucket configurations (e.g., CORS, lifecycle, policy), and the description does not help the agent decide which one to invoke. It does not mention when not to use it or provide any selection criteria.

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