object_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. It clearly discloses truncation behavior, explains that 'lastModified' and 'versionId' can be null, and describes the return envelope structure. It also signals the read-only nature with [READ]. Minor gap: doesn't discuss auth/permission requirements, but the return-format disclosure is strong.

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?

Well-structured with a leading [READ] tag, return envelope preview, behavioral warning paragraph, then a clean Args block. Every sentence earns its place—no filler, front-loaded with the most critical information about truncation.

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 listing tool with 4 params, this is quite complete. It covers the return format, truncation semantics, null field behavior, and all parameter meanings. It lacks an explicit example call and doesn't mention ordering/sorting behavior, but the essential usage context is well covered.

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 fully. It does: bucket_name is explained (from bucket_ls), prefix 'Key prefix filter; empty for whole bucket', limit has min/max AND default stated, and target explains it's a MinIO config target with omit-for-default guidance. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema definitions.

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 verb+resource: 'Objects under prefix in a truncation-aware envelope'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like bucket_ls (bucket listing vs object listing). The [READ] tag and the explicit note about never being a full walk add precision.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use and how to behave: if truncated is true, it's the normal case and the agent should 're-run with a higher limit or a narrower prefix instead of treating the page as the whole bucket'. This is actionable if-then guidance.

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