liara_list_buckets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List all storage buckets' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by the input schema), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output looks like. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple list operation, making it easy to parse quickly.

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's low complexity (a list operation), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details about output format, pagination defaults, or error handling, which would be helpful for an agent to use it correctly. It's complete enough for basic understanding but leaves room for improvement.

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 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all four parameters (page, perPage, limit, offset). The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without adding extra 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 'List all storage buckets' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('storage buckets'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other list tools in the sibling set (like liara_list_apps, liara_list_databases, etc.), which follow the same pattern but target different resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no explicit instructions about prerequisites, context, or comparisons to other tools (e.g., liara_get_bucket for retrieving a single bucket). Usage is implied by the name and description alone, but no explicit guidelines are given.

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