get_sts

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the HTTP method, the endpoint, and that the raw response body is returned. This gives meaningful behavioral hints, but it omits authentication requirements, failure behavior, and any special handling of the response.

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 compact sentence with no filler; it presents the action, endpoint, and response behavior efficiently. Every part 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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is too sparse. The agent cannot confidently distinguish it from get_sts_no_verify, does not learn the meaning of user_id beyond a path placeholder, and has no guidance on when the raw body should be expected or how to handle it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only shows userId appearing in the URL path. It does not explain what user_id represents, its format, or that it is effectively required despite not being listed as required in the schema.

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 retrieves temporary credentials for object storage and gives the exact endpoint. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_sts_no_verify, so some differentiation burden is left to the agent.

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 usage context is given; there is no statement about when to use this tool versus get_sts_no_verify or other auth-related tools. The description only records the API call, leaving the agent to infer eligibility and preconditions.

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