list_buckets

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 only states the action (list) but does not indicate read-only nature, return format, pagination, or error handling. For a list operation, the absence of return description and any side effects leaves significant ambiguity.

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 concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource. There is no wasted wording, making it efficient, though it sacrifices depth for brevity.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it tells what the tool does. However, it does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., list of bucket names) or any caveats. Given the simplicity, the absence of return details is a notable gap but not critical. The description is functionally sufficient for a trivial listing operation.

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%, and the single parameter (folder_id) is fully documented in the schema with its default behavior. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but since the schema already explains the parameter, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'list' and resource 'buckets of Object Storage' with an optional location qualifier 'в каталоге'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_instances or list_functions, which target different resources. The purpose is unambiguous.

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. It does not mention any conditions, dependencies, or explicit states (e.g., 'use when you need to enumerate buckets'). Without sibling differentiation or context, an agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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