list_bucket_objects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains pagination, defaults, and search patterns, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe the shape of results beyond the output schema. The absence of side effects is implied but not confirmed.

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: a one-sentence summary followed by a compact, informative parameter list. Every line adds value without redundancy or filler.

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 7 parameters and no annotations, the description covers all parameters and provides meaningful context like defaults and examples. It does not discuss sorting, return value details, or edge cases, but the presence of an output schema mitigates the need to explain return values.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: bucket, prefix with example, search glob pattern, limit, offset, delimiter, and provider_id. This adds substantive meaning beyond the bare schema definitions.

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 or searches objects inside a specific bucket with prefix filtering and pagination, identifying the resource and action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_objects or scan_bucket, leaving potential ambiguity.

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 usage for bucket object listing/searching through its phrasing and parameter explanations, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_objects. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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