Хранилища проекта

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

The description is minimal and does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic list operation. The annotations include readOnlyHint: false, which is unusual for a list operation, and the description does not clarify whether there are side effects or specific behaviors like pagination or response shape. Thus, the description adds little transparency beyond what annotations already provide.

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 a single, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. It is appropriately concise for a simple list operation, though it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, missing opportunities to add useful context.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It states the action and scope but does not mention what the response contains (e.g., bucket names, IDs) or any pagination or filtering behavior. Given the lack of an output schema, a more detailed description would improve completeness.

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 fully describes the only parameter 'project_id' with a mandatory flag and a brief description. The description rephrases this as 'in the specified project' but adds no new semantic detail. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, with no extra value from the description.

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 'list' and the resource 'S3 storages' (buckets) scoped to a specified project, which provides a solid understanding of the action. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the similarly named sibling tool 'list_all_project_buckets', leaving some ambiguity about when to use one over the other.

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 that this tool lists buckets for a specific project, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'list_buckets' or 'list_all_project_buckets'. There are no exclusions or mention of alternative tools, leaving the usage context largely implied.

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