Get Scaleway Bucket Policy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is established. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing that the tool returns an error when the bucket has no policy, which is important for agent expectations.

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 sentence that immediately states the operation, the target resource, and a relevant error condition. There is no filler, redundancy, or repetition of schema field names.

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 simple two-parameter read operation with full schema coverage and strong read-only annotations, the description provides enough context: it identifies the resource type, says it reads the policy JSON, and covers the no-policy failure mode. No output schema exists, but 'policy JSON' is sufficient for an agent to infer the return value at a functional level.

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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters: bucket includes a name and example, and region includes an enum plus default behavior. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond contextualizing that the policy is on an Object Storage bucket, so it stays at the baseline for well-schema-documented tools.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('Bucket Policy JSON attached to an Object Storage bucket'), clearly distinguishing it from the many sibling tools like get_bucket_tagging, get_bucket_cors, or put_bucket_policy. It also adds a meaningful edge-case signal by stating that an error is raised when the bucket has no policy.

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 frames this as a read/fetch operation for an existing bucket policy, which implies the appropriate context for use. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the tool name and sibling set (put_bucket_policy, delete_bucket_policy) make the intended usage reasonably clear.

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