List buckets via Storage management API

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the '[READ]' prefix adds nothing. The one genuinely new behavioral fact is the authentication model (Machine User key rather than S3 HMAC), which matters for invocation and is not in the annotations — that earns partial credit beyond the annotation baseline.

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?

A single dense sentence with the read marker and resource front-loaded, followed by endpoint, params, and auth note. Every clause carries information; it packs a lot but wastes nothing.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema and a small flat parameter set, the description covers endpoint, scope, all parameters, and the auth credential type. Only pagination behavior/return shape is left open, which is acceptable for this complexity.

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 has to carry the parameter burden — and it does, naming all three (status, page, perPage) and spelling out the enum values all|shared|owned. It adds no format or default details for page/perPage beyond the names, but that is a minor gap given the schema supplies types.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List buckets') and pins it to the Storage management API endpoint GET /v1/buckets, which distinguishes it from the S3-style list_buckets and from list_ai_buckets siblings. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the API/endpoint scoping makes the target unambiguous.

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 parenthetical '(not S3 HMAC)' implicitly tells the agent this is the management-API route rather than the S3-credential route, which is useful routing context. However it never states when to prefer this over list_buckets or what to do when auth is missing, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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