get_bucket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed information' and mentions return content like 'public access settings and versioning,' which adds some context. However, it lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, potential error conditions (e.g., if the bucket doesn't exist), authentication requirements, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with cloud storage.

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 well-structured and concise, with zero wasted words. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by bullet points for 'Args' and 'Returns' that efficiently organize key information. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters adequately but lacks behavioral details like error handling or security requirements. Without an output schema, it helpfully hints at return values ('public access settings and versioning'), but this isn't comprehensive. It's a minimal viable description with clear room for improvement.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'bucket_name' is the 'Name of the bucket' and clarifies that 'namespace' is 'Optional' and will be 'fetched automatically' if not provided. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., naming rules for buckets).

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 detailed information about a specific Object Storage bucket.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('Object Storage bucket'), making the action unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_buckets' or other 'get_' tools, 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_buckets' for listing multiple buckets or other 'get_' tools for different resources. There's no context about prerequisites, such as required permissions or when namespace specification is necessary, leaving usage unclear.

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