oci_os_list_objects

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic operation. It omits any mention of pagination, default limits (e.g., limit defaults to 100), compartment defaulting, or that this is a read-only operation. This lacks transparency for an agent relying solely on the description.

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?

A single sentence of 11 words, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no redundant content. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

The tool is a simple list operation with well-documented parameters, but the description omits important contextual details such as return format, pagination behavior, or any constraints. Without an output schema or annotations, the agent lacks information about what the response contains or how the list is delivered.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, including defaults. The description adds only a hint about the prefix filter matching the schema, but does not introduce new meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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 'List objects in a bucket with optional prefix filter' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('objects in a bucket'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_buckets or compute list operations. The optional prefix filter adds useful scope without ambiguity.

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 implies usage for listing bucket contents, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as oci_os_list_buckets. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided, leaving the agent to infer from the name and sibling context.

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