cos_get_bucket_policy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of conveying behavior. '获取' and '用于检查' clearly indicate a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose permission requirements, error conditions, or behavior when no bucket policy exists. This is acceptable for a simple getter but not rich.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The operation is stated first, and the use case follows immediately, making it easy to scan and process.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the main purpose and a common use case. It is complete enough for selection and invocation, though it leaves return-value details and edge cases unspecified.

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%, so the schema already documents the bucket name and optional region with a default behavior. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 uses a specific verb ('获取') and identifies the exact resource ('存储桶的桶策略'), and adds the practical purpose of checking for anonymous read grants. It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling cos_check_public_read, which may overlap in intent.

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 second sentence gives a concrete use case: verifying whether any policy grants anonymous principals read access. This provides context for when to call the tool, though it does not state when to prefer alternatives such as cos_check_public_read or cos_get_bucket_acl.

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