list_storage_objects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering by prefix but fails to describe critical behaviors like pagination mechanics (implied by limit/offset), authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like. For a list operation with 4 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Lists objects within a specific storage bucket') and adds a useful qualifier ('optionally filtering by prefix'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., list of objects with metadata), pagination behavior, error handling, or authentication needs. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured output documentation, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to operate effectively.

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 100%, so the input schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning prefix filtering but doesn't provide additional context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., examples of prefix usage, interaction between limit/offset). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the verb ('Lists') and resource ('objects within a specific storage bucket'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_storage_buckets' or 'list_tables', which would require a more specific scope statement to earn 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions optional filtering by prefix but doesn't address scenarios like when to use 'list_storage_buckets' instead or prerequisites for accessing buckets. This lack of contextual direction leaves the agent without usage boundaries.

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