list_objects

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 does disclose the output shape and that only names are returned, but it does not explicitly mention read-only behavior, failure modes for nonexistent paths, or whether listing is recursive/top-level. The name implies a read operation, but the description itself adds limited behavioral context beyond the result format.

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?

A single compact sentence that leads with the main result, states the output format, and adds the alternative tool. There is no redundant wording 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?

Given a single parameter and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers result shape and the closest alternative. It could be more complete by explicitly stating the prerequisite of a successful unpack and a more exact definition of dir_path, but these are minor for this simple listing tool.

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 coverage for dir_path is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides some context by tying the listing to an unpacked container, which suggests dir_path points to that container. However, it never explicitly names or defines dir_path, leaving the exact path semantics somewhat inferred.

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 states a specific operation: list objects inside an unpacked container, and specifies the returned shape ({object_type: [names]}). It also distinguishes itself from get_metadata by explicitly noting that only names are returned while full metadata is handled by that sibling.

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?

It gives clear context (operates on an unpacked container) and an explicit boundary: use this for names only, and use get_metadata for full metadata. This is sufficient to route an agent between this tool and its closest sibling.

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