liara_list_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like pagination (implied by maxKeys), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the output looks like (e.g., list of objects with metadata). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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 waste: 'List objects in a bucket'. It's front-loaded and gets straight to the point without unnecessary words or complexity.

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 is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'objects' entail (e.g., files, metadata), how results are returned, or any behavioral aspects like pagination or errors. For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured output info, this minimal description leaves too much undefined for reliable agent use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (bucketName, prefix, maxKeys) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the tool lists objects, which is already evident from the name and schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 objects in a bucket' clearly states the action (list) and resource (objects in a bucket). It distinguishes from siblings like liara_list_buckets (lists buckets) and liara_upload_object (uploads objects), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list operations like liara_list_apps or liara_list_vms, which share the same verb pattern.

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. For example, it doesn't mention if this is the primary way to browse bucket contents or if there are other tools for filtering/searching objects. The description assumes the user knows this is for listing objects, but offers no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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