ncloud_list_objects

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates the safe, read-only nature. The description adds the bucket scope but does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination (marker, maxKeys), potential truncation, or that it returns only current object versions (not versions). Since annotations cover the safety profile, a middle score is appropriate, but the description could add more context about the listing behavior.

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 sentence of seven words: 'List objects in an Object Storage bucket'. It is front-loaded, unambiguous, and contains no filler or redundant content. It is appropriately concise for a simple list operation.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the core purpose, and the schema covers parameter details. However, it lacks differentiating context (e.g., that this does not list versions) and gives no hint about the return shape or pagination behavior. Given the sibling `list_object_versions` tool, this is a notable gap in completeness.

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% — every parameter (bucketName, marker, prefix, maxKeys, delimiter) has a full description. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and no additional semantic value is offered.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List objects in an Object Storage bucket'. It clearly states the action and target, but it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool `ncloud_list_object_versions`, which lists object versions. The name `list_objects` vs `list_object_versions` provides implicit separation, but a 5 requires explicit differentiation.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `ncloud_get_object` (retrieve a specific object), `ncloud_list_buckets` (list buckets), or `ncloud_list_object_versions` (list versions). The description provides no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tool references, leaving the agent to infer usage from the 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.