cloud_storage_list_objects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return type and the optional parameters, which adds some behavioral context. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any pagination behavior, or error conditions. It is adequate but not rich in behavioral context.

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 concise and well-structured, with a one-sentence purpose followed by a clear Args list and Returns note. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

The description is incomplete because it lists 'prefix' and 'bucket_name' as separate arguments, but the schema requires a single 'request' object. It does not explain how these arguments map to the request object, leaving the agent confused about the exact call structure. Additionally, without an output schema, it does not document any possible error responses or edge cases, making it insufficient for a schema that is so generic.

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?

The input schema only has a generic 'request' object with additionalProperties, providing no details about the actual parameters. The description compensates fully by specifying 'prefix' and 'bucket_name', their optionality, and defaults. This is critical because schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds all the necessary parameter semantics.

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 tool lists objects in a bucket with optional prefix filtering, which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cloud_storage_list_buckets by focusing on objects within a bucket.

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 by the function: it is used to list objects, optionally filtered by prefix and bucket. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., for listing buckets), nor does it provide exclusions. This falls under 'implied usage' rather than clear guidance.

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