cos_list_objects

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

No annotations provided. Description only states 'list objects' without disclosing behavior like pagination, default max_keys, or whether it returns object metadata. Agent gets no insight into potential large responses or ordering.

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?

Extremely short (4 words), but omits critical information. Conciseness is not beneficial when it sacrifices completeness. Fails to front-load useful details for tool selection or use.

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. With 4 parameters and zero parameter descriptions, the agent lacks essential context for correct invocation. Nothing about return format, error cases, or pagination behavior needed for a list operation.

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%, yet the description does not explain any of the four parameters (bucket_name, prefix, max_keys, region). Agent must infer meaning from parameter names alone, which may be ambiguous (e.g., 'region' usage).

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' clearly states the action (list) and resource (objects in a bucket). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cos_list_buckets (which lists buckets) and other cos object operations.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention optional filtering (prefix, max_keys) or page handling. Sibling tools are not referenced to help the agent choose.

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