bucket_info

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 checks existence and gets basic info, but doesn't describe what 'basic info' includes (e.g., creation date, permissions), error handling for non-existent buckets, or any rate limits or authentication requirements. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Check if a bucket exists and get basic info'). There is no wasted text, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for its purpose.

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 complexity of a read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'basic info' entails in the return values, error conditions, or behavioral traits like idempotency. For a tool with zero structured data coverage, this leaves critical gaps for an AI agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'bucket' documented as 'Bucket name' in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or examples, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('bucket'), explaining it verifies existence and retrieves basic information. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_buckets' (which lists all buckets) or 'get_object' (which retrieves object data), missing full sibling distinction.

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 scenarios like verifying bucket existence before operations, or contrast with 'list_buckets' for listing all buckets or 'get_object' for object-specific data, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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