List object storage buckets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the operation, such as whether results are paginated, how many buckets are returned by default, or what the listing includes.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It is efficient, though extremely terse and could have used a few more words to route the agent to the right prerequisite tool.

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 read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it omits useful context such as referencing list_object_storage_units as the source of storageUnitId and giving any sense of pagination behavior or result shape.

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 100%, so all three parameters are fully documented in the input schema, including pagination defaults and the storageUnitId format. The description only adds the scoping notion of listing within a storage unit and does not expand on parameter meaning beyond the 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('List the buckets') and scopes it to an object storage unit, so it is distinguishable from list_object_storage_units and get_object_storage_keys. It does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_object_storage_units or the access-key tools, nor any stated preconditions. The scope 'within an object storage unit' loosely implies that a storageUnitId is required, but this is not framed as usage guidance.

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