list_buckets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the action ('List') and return type ('List of buckets'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, permissions required, or error handling. For a read operation with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are clear and efficient, with no redundant information. Every sentence adds value, making it appropriately sized and easy 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., pagination, errors) and return format specifics. For a simple list tool, it's minimally adequate but incomplete for robust agent use without additional context.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining 'compartment_id' as 'OCID of the compartment to list buckets from' and 'namespace' as 'Optional namespace (if not provided, will be fetched automatically)', clarifying purpose and default behavior beyond the schema's basic types. This covers both parameters effectively, though not exhaustively.

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 resource ('Object Storage buckets in a compartment'), specifying scope with 'all'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_bucket' (singular retrieval) and 'list_compartments' (different resource), making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implicitly suggests use for listing buckets, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), exclusions, or compare to other list tools (e.g., 'list_vaults' for different resources). The description lacks explicit usage context or alternatives.

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