bucket_ls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by explaining the envelope structure, the truncation flag semantics, and what the side-effect-free '[READ]' nature means. It could add details about pagination behavior or whether sort order is defined, but the truncation warning is valuable behavioral transparency.

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 tightly written with zero wasted words. Each sentence earns its place: the envelope format, the truncation warning, and the parameter explanations. The docstring format with named args is clean and scannable.

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 simple list tool with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers return format, truncation semantics, and parameter meaning. There's no output schema, so the description correctly takes on documenting the return envelope. It's slightly sparse on operational details (e.g., what counts as a bucket, error behavior), but sufficient for its 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: 'limit' with a default of 500 and 'target' as the MinIO target name with default behavior. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema which only lists types and defaults.

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 it lists buckets (name + creation time) with a truncation-aware envelope. The '[READ]' prefix and explicit resource naming distinguish it from sibling tools like bucket_info, object_ls, and bucket_quota_get.

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 description explicitly explains when to re-run with a higher limit when 'truncated' is true, which is important usage context. It doesn't explicitly say 'when not to use' or name alternatives, but the truncation handling is actionable guidance. Sibling differentiation is implicit via the 'buckets' resource focus.

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