list_buckets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key behavior of returning a trimmed summary unless raw=true, which is useful. However, it omits other behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only operation (implicit but not stated), whether pagination is involved, what the trimmed summary contains, or any access/authorization requirements. This is a minimum-viable disclosure with clear gaps.

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 exceptionally concise and front-loaded. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose, and the second sentence adds a critical nuance about output formatting. There is no redundancy or boilerplate, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 tool has 4 optional parameters and no output schema, so the description should provide more context about parameter interactions and the expected return structure. It mentions a 'trimmed summary' but does not specify what it contains, nor does it clarify that listing is limited to a single compartment (with tenancy root as default, per the schema). The description is adequate but leaves the agent without important contextual details for invoking the tool correctly.

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% since every parameter has a detailed description. The tool description adds marginal value by mentioning the raw=true behavior, but that is already captured in the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not significantly enrich parameter understanding beyond what is already in the input schema.

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 verb (Lists), the resource (Object Storage buckets), and the scope (in a compartment). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like list_compartments or list_instances, and the additional note about returning a trimmed summary adds useful detail.

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 description implies this tool is used for listing buckets, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives such as get_bucket (for a single bucket) or list_objects (for objects within a bucket). No when-not-to-use or alternative tool references are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the verb and resource.

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