bucket_ls

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the exact return envelope keys (buckets/returned/limit/truncated) and the consequence of truncated being true. Missing only pagination/ordering or auth notes, which are minor here.

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?

Front-loaded with the [READ] tag and resource, then the return shape, then args. Every sentence earns its place; only the inline envelope example borders on restating what a schema would say, which is acceptable given no output schema exists.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly supplies the return shape and truncation semantics itself. Both parameters are explained and the read-only nature is consistent with annotations, leaving little an agent needs that is missing.

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 carry the params — and it does: limit is documented as max buckets with a default of 500, and target as a MinIO target name from config where omission means the default. That is meaningful syntax and semantics beyond the bare 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?

States a specific resource and scope: buckets, with the returned fields named (name + creation time), and flags itself as a [READ] operation. It is clearly distinguishable from object_ls and bucket_info by resource, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the listing nature and the truncation guidance ('re-run with a higher limit rather than reporting the list as complete') gives real operational context. But there is no statement of when to prefer this over bucket_info or how to scope to a specific bucket, so routing guidance is absent.

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