Get Scaleway bucket encryption config

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

The description provides key behavioral nuance beyond the annotations: the empty config on fresh buckets (HTTP 200, not AWS-style error), and that the setting is real/toggleable rather than inert metadata. It also corrects an earlier inaccuracy, demonstrating a deliberate focus on accurate runtime behavior. This complements the readOnlyHint/idempotent annotations without contradicting them.

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 dense paragraph and contains valuable information, but the history/self-correction sentence ('An earlier version...') is meta-commentary that doesn't help invoke the tool. Front-loaded purpose statement is good, but overall the description is more verbose than necessary.

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?

The schema and annotations handle parameter documentation and safety semantics well. The description adds crucial runtime context for an edge case (empty config) and states there is no error on fresh buckets. It does not fully describe the structure of a non-empty configured response, but for a simple read operation with no output schema, the provided information is still fairly complete.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (bucket with description and region with enum/description). The description doesn't add parameter-specific semantics, but that is okay because the schema does the heavy lifting; baseline 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 opens with a clear, specific verb+resource: 'Read the bucket's S3 default-encryption configuration.' It also distinguishes itself from related S3 config tools by noting the Scaleway-specific behavior, which sets this read operation apart from both AWS and sibling tools like put/delete_bucket_encryption.

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 clearly explains that a fresh bucket returns an empty config and that this is a real toggleable setting, which helps the agent know what to expect. It also references put_bucket_encryption/delete_bucket_encryption as the operations that alter the setting, providing useful context for when to use this read. It doesn't explicitly say 'use this instead of X' for all alternative tools, but the use case is clear enough.

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