Get Scaleway bucket website configuration

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by naming the exact error response when no website configuration is set, which is not derivable from the annotations or schema. This gives the agent useful expectation-setting beyond the structured metadata.

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 short sentences with no filler. The first sentence leads with the verb and resource, and the second provides a crucial edge-case behavior. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only getter with good annotations and schema coverage, the description is essentially complete. It explains the action and the main error case. It does not detail the returned fields, but the resource name ('static-website configuration') makes the expected return obvious enough for selection and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented with names and descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which matches the baseline score for well-covered schemas.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('a bucket's static-website configuration'). This distinguishes it from sibling getters like get_bucket_cors, get_bucket_tagging, and get_bucket_versioning, which target different bucket configurations.

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 implies its use case: retrieve the static-website configuration for a bucket. It also provides a meaningful error condition (NoSuchWebsiteConfiguration) that helps the agent decide whether the tool is appropriate when no configuration may exist. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tools make context clear.

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