hcloud_obs_ls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the basic operation but does not disclose that the tool is read-only, safe, or free of side effects. It also fails to mention behavior like pagination, ordering, or error conditions that an agent should know when invoking. This is a significant gap for a list operation that may return large datasets.

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, concise sentence that effectively communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it highly scannable for an AI agent. The structure is efficient and earns its place with minimal overhead.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the output structure (e.g., list of names, metadata), the role of 'brief' or 'limit', or any constraints. An agent would need to infer a lot from parameter names alone, increasing risk of misuse. A richer description is needed for full self-containment.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds no new parameter-level information beyond what the schema already offers (e.g., it doesn't explain the interplay between 'bucket' and 'prefix' or the effect of 'brief'). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not detract but also adds negligible semantic value.

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's action ('List') and the resource ('OBS buckets or objects in a bucket'). The dual mode of listing either all buckets or objects within a specific bucket is concisely covered, and the tool name 'hcloud_obs_ls' aligns with the purpose. It distinguishes from sibling OBS tools like 'hcloud_obs_cat' and 'hcloud_obs_stat' which have different operations, and from other list tools by resource type.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or on prerequisites. It does not mention that omitting 'bucket' lists all buckets, though that can be inferred from the schema. There is no comparison with similar tools (e.g., when to use ls vs cat/stat for OBS), leaving the agent to rely on the tool name and schema alone.

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