cloud_storage_list_objects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool lists objects with optional filtering and returns a list of names, which covers basic read-only behavior. However, it fails to disclose critical traits such as pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether it's a safe read operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational characteristics.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured for clarity. However, the mismatch between described parameters and schema parameters introduces inefficiency, as the description doesn't accurately reflect the tool's interface.

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 moderate complexity (list operation with filtering), no annotations, low schema coverage (0%), no output schema, and a parameter mismatch, the description is incomplete. It provides basic purpose and return type but fails to address the schema discrepancy, behavioral details like pagination or errors, and doesn't fully guide usage in context of sibling tools. For a tool with these gaps, it should do more to compensate.

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 description documents two parameters ('prefix' and 'bucket_name') with semantics like 'Only list objects beginning with this prefix' and 'Bucket to list from'. However, the input schema shows only one required parameter ('request') with 0% description coverage and nested objects. The description's parameters do not align with the schema's structure, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation and creating confusion about actual parameter usage.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('objects in a bucket'), and mentions optional prefix filtering. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'cloud_storage_list_buckets' by focusing on objects rather than buckets. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other object-related tools like 'cloud_storage_download_file' or 'cloud_storage_delete_object'.

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 context through 'optional prefix filtering' and 'defaults to instance default', suggesting when to use this tool for filtered or default bucket listings. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'cloud_storage_list_buckets' for bucket-level operations or other object-handling tools. No clear exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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