list_object_storage_credentials

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds little beyond that: it does not disclose that the response contains sensitive credential material, nor how pagination behaves despite page/size parameters, which is the most important behavioral fact for a credentials-listing call.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, but the sentence is needlessly duplicated ('Get list of S3 compatible object storage credentials' appears twice) and a raw endpoint string is embedded. Roughly half the text is redundant restatement rather than new information.

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 parameterized read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential what and where. The notable gap is that it never says whether returned credentials are masked or plaintext, or how paging should be driven, which matters for a secrets-adjacent endpoint.

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 all eight parameters (page, size, orderBy, regionName, displayName, objectStorageId, x-trace-id, userId) are already documented. The description only reinforces that the listing is scoped to a user; it adds no filtering or ordering semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get list of S3 compatible object storage credentials for user') and scopes it to a user via the path. However, the sibling 'get_object_storage_credentials' is never mentioned, so the agent cannot tell from the description alone which one returns a list versus a single credential.

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 usage context is implied: list credentials so they can be used with S3-compatible tools like the `aws` cli. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over 'get_object_storage_credentials' or 'regenerate_object_storage_credentials', and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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