cos_check_public_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly signals a non-mutating inspection via '检查/校验/自检' and discloses exactly what is evaluated (ACL and policy for anonymous read). It does not mention required credentials or explicit 'no modification' wording, but the read-only intent is strongly evident.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler: it states the action, the exact check scope, and the intended use case. Every clause contributes.

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 description is complete for a simple two-parameter check: purpose, scope, and use case are covered. There is no output schema, so return-value shape is left implicit, but '是否...开放读' strongly implies a boolean/verdict result, which is acceptable.

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%, and both parameters ('bucket', 'region') have adequate descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 identifies a precise action—'综合检查' a COS bucket for anonymous read access—and explicitly scopes it to both bucket ACL and bucket policy. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cos_get_bucket_acl and cos_get_bucket_policy, which inspect only one source.

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?

States a concrete usage context: pre-launch security self-check to confirm private sensitive objects will not leak. It does not explicitly name when to prefer the individual ACL/policy sibling tools, but the '同时校验' phrasing implies those are for single-source checks, so the guidance is clear enough.

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