Get Scaleway bucket visibility (public/private)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value beyond these by explaining how visibility is derived (from ACL grants, with the AllUsers group check) and noting that it returns raw grants as well. This contextualizes the read behavior and output, which is useful for the agent.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no fluff. It front-loads the core action ('Read a bucket's visibility'), then provides the derivation logic and return content. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, read-only operation), the description is fully complete. It explains the visibility derivation, the return of raw grants, and the safe read nature (reinforced by annotations). There is no missing information that would hinder selection or invocation.

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% coverage: bucket has 'Bucket name.' and region has 'Region to operate in. Defaults to the server's configured region (fr-par).' The description adds no additional parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 applies, and the description doesn't enhance it further.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Read a bucket's visibility, derived from its ACL grants'. It specifies the exact resource (bucket visibility) and the verb (Read), and differentiates itself from sibling tools like scaleway_s3_set_bucket_visibility by focusing on reading vs. setting. The derivation logic ('public' if anonymous AllUsers group holds any grant) adds specificity.

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 implies this tool is for reading visibility, as opposed to the sibling scaleway_s3_set_bucket_visibility for setting it. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions (e.g., 'if you need to change visibility, use the set tool'). The context is clear but lacks explicit alternative guidance, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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