object_storage_get_s3_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'Get' and the enumerated return fields make it clear this is a read-only configuration retrieval that exposes credentials, and the description does not imply any destructive or mutating behavior. It does not mention authentication or permission requirements, but for a simple config getter the disclosure is reasonably complete.

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 concise and well-structured with separate Args and Returns sections. The first sentence states the tool's purpose immediately, followed only by the single parameter and the precise output fields.

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?

This is a simple getter with one required parameter, an output schema, and no hidden prerequisites. The description covers the parameter's accepted forms and the returned configuration fields comprehensively, so an agent has enough context to select and invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It clarifies that object_storage_id accepts either an ID or label and gives concrete examples ('my-storage', 'backup-bucket', UUID), adding meaning well beyond the bare string property in the input 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 states a specific action and resource: 'Get S3-compatible configuration details for an Object Storage instance.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like object_storage_get (storage instance summary), object_storage_validate_s3_access (validation), and object_storage_regenerate_keys (key rotation).

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need the S3 endpoint, credentials, or region for an Object Storage instance. However, the description does not explicitly distinguish when to use this instead of object_storage_get or object_storage_validate_s3_access, and does not mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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