search_objects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it never declares the operation read-only, gives no pagination or result-limit behavior, and no indication of cost or scoping requirements. It also advertises two search modes but the schema exposes no mode selector, leaving the behavioral contract ambiguous.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is clean and readable, though arguably terse relative to the tool's four parameters.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. Nothing tells the agent how to scope the search, cap results, or interpret the response.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It hints at keyword vs regex semantics for 'query' but does not say which applies or how it is selected, and never mentions bucket, prefix, or max_results at all.

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 names a verb (matching/search) and a scope ('prefix path tree'), and it specifies two modes (keyword matching and regex). However, 'prefix path tree' is not a standard term and it never clarifies whether object keys, paths, or contents are searched, nor does it distinguish itself from siblings like list_objects or read_object_text.

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 statement of when to use this tool instead of list_objects, read_object_text, or the other search-adjacent siblings. The agent is left to infer that this is a filtered lookup rather than a plain listing.

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