List the objects of a DataLens storage bucket

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, but the description adds real value beyond them: auto-pagination behavior, the experimental/unmeasured status of the endpoint, and the notable 403-vs-404 semantics where an unknown environment returns Permission denied rather than not-found. That last point is a genuine behavioral caveat an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The phrasing 'written from its document: not measured' is slightly opaque but is compact and informative rather than wasteful.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully tells the agent what comes back (object paths) and that results are auto-paginated, plus the 403 caveat for unknown environments. For a low-complexity list tool this is close to complete; only explicit pagination semantics would improve it.

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% and all three parameters (limit, prefix, cloud_environment_id) are documented inline, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as prefix-matching semantics or limit defaults, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the paths of objects in a cloud environment's storage bucket. That is distinguishable from the sibling metadata_get, which targets a single object, though the description never names that sibling to reinforce the distinction.

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?

It notes the tool is auto-paginated but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites for calling it, and no routing to or away from the related bucket tools (object_metadata_get, download_url_create, upload_url_create). Usage is only implied by the verb 'list'.

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