usage_by_bucket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the truncation behavior ('truncated' flag, do not present as complete breakdown), which is valuable behavioral transparency. It also reveals the returned envelope shape. Does not mention rate limits or auth, but the truncation disclosure is the most important behavioral trait 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?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the [READ] marker and main purpose, then provides the return format and args. Every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more polished but is efficient overall.

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 needs to explain return values — it does with the envelope example showing buckets/returned/limit/truncated. With 0% schema coverage, the 2 params are documented. The main gap: no example invocation and no guidance on interpretation of 'returned' vs 'limit' semantics beyond truncation. Adequate but not comprehensive for a tool likely used in capacity monitoring workflows.

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 (max rows, default 25) and target (MinIO target name from config, omit for default). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema. However, the explanation is minimal — no format examples, no constraints on limit range, nothing about what happens with different target values.

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: per-bucket usage (bytes + objects), ordered by size, in an envelope. It clearly differentiates from siblings like bucket_ls (listing) and bucket_info (single-bucket details). However, it doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool for comparison, and the 'in an envelope' phrasing is slightly vague without context.

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 provides clear context of when to use — per-bucket usage summary. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say 'use X instead', but the [READ] prefix and the structure make the tool's role clear among the sibling set of read/bucket tools. No explicit exclusions are given.

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