get_object_storage_object_retention

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or whether it requires specific permissions. It also does not disclose any side effects or error conditions. The description adds minimal transparency beyond the schema.

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 purpose. There is no verbosity; every word is necessary and informative. It is optimally sized for a simple retrieval operation.

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 low complexity, two well-described parameters, and no output schema, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It does not explain what the retention configuration includes (e.g., mode, retain until date) or how the response will look. For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, a bit more detail would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters (bucket and key) having descriptions in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, the description does not compensate for or enhance the parameter semantics. Baseline score 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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the specific resource ('Object Lock retention configuration') and scope ('for an object in an Object Storage bucket'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_object_storage_bucket_lock_configuration (bucket-level) and get_object_storage_object_legal_hold (legal hold vs retention) by specifying 'retention configuration'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as whether the bucket must have Object Lock enabled, nor does it indicate when not to use this tool (e.g., for bucket-level retention settings). No comparison with sibling tools is provided.

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