Get the Organization's SCIM provisioning configuration

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds concrete behavioral context: the tool returns an error if SCIM was never enabled, and that this is the expected default state. This clarifies a non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations, with no contradiction.

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 two sentences (30 words) with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and returned fields. The second sentence adds essential error behavior. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy.

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 output schema, the description covers the key return fields (id, created_at) and the error behavior. For a simple config read operation with annotations present, this is nearly complete. A minor gap is that the full return shape is not guaranteed, but the stated fields are likely sufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter information since none exist. Schema coverage is 100% (no parameters to describe), and the description adds value by explaining the config fields returned (id, created_at).

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 'Read the Organization's SCIM config (id, created_at)', specifying the exact verb (Read) and resource (SCIM config). It distinguishes from siblings like scaleway_iam_enable_scim (write) and scaleway_iam_list_scim_tokens (list) by focusing on reading the config itself and noting the error condition for unconfigured state.

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 clear context: 'Returns an error if SCIM was never enabled - that is the expected default state'. This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate (reading existing config) and normalizes the error scenario. While it does not explicitly list alternatives, the sibling tool set includes enable/disable and list tokens, making the usage context sufficient.

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