object_storage_get_object_metadata

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'HEAD request' implying no body download, but does not address permissions, error behavior (e.g., missing object), rate limits, or whether the request is read-only. Output schema exists but description does not clarify return structure beyond 'metadata'.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action. However, it is extremely minimal and could include more useful context without losing conciseness. No wasted words.

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 tool's low complexity (single object metadata) and the presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It identifies the HTTP method and purpose. It could mention that only metadata is returned (no body) but the word 'metadata' suffices.

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% with all parameters described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 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 clearly states 'Get metadata for a single object' and specifies the HTTP method as 'HEAD request'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like object_storage_list_objects (list objects) and object_storage_put_object (upload), providing precise purpose.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description implies it is for metadata retrieval of a single object, but does not compare with alternatives or mention preconditions. Context signals show many storage-related siblings, but no differentiation is provided.

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