Get Scaleway bucket lifecycle rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive. The description adds the specific error behavior 'Errors with NoSuchLifecycleConfiguration if none are set,' which is valuable. But it doesn't address return format, permissions, or other behavioral details, so it's only modestly beyond the annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every clause earns its place. 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?

For this simple read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a key error condition. It lacks output structure detail, but that's not required given the nature of the 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 coverage is 100%, with bucket and region already described in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clear verb 'Read' identifies exactly the action on the specific resource 'bucket's lifecycle rules.' Distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the lifecycle-specific resource and adding the NoSuchLifecycleConfiguration error detail.

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 explicitly frames the operation as a read, which implies when to use it (to inspect lifecycle rules) and contrasts with sibling put/delete lifecycle tools. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses the top bar.

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