List Scaleway Audit Trail alert rules

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

The annotation block already declares readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, which tells the agent this is a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the rules are preconfigured (cannot be created/deleted), the permission escalation needed, and that the tool corresponds to the console's Audit Trail > Alerts page. There is no contradiction with the annotations. However, the description does not detail the output format or pagination behavior beyond what the schema hints (max_pages).

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 three sentences long and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds information: the first defines what the tool does and its context, the second clarifies the nature of the rules, the third covers permissions. No fluff. Slight improvement would be to merge the permission context more concisely, but overall it is well-structured.

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 has no output schema, the description does not need to explain return format. The annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) are strong, and the description covers purpose, usage, permissions, and sibling distinction. It is slightly incomplete on output details (e.g., field names in response), but for a list tool with solid annotations, this is acceptable. Could be more complete about pagination behavior.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that 'region' defaults to the server's configured region and that 'status' filter applies to the list. It also hints at pagination via max_pages. However, the description does not elaborate on the meaning of each parameter beyond what the schema already says; it complements but does not significantly expand.

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 it lists Scaleway's preconfigured Audit Trail alert rules for the Organization, including their status. It explicitly distinguishes itself by noting these are preconfigured by Scaleway and cannot be created or deleted, which differentiates it from sibling tools like scaleway_audit_list_custom_alert_rules.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for Scaleway-defined alert rules only, and mentions that creation/deletion is not allowed (only enable/disable). It also explains the permission requirements beyond minimal read access, and even suggests a corrective action (using scaleway_iam_set_policy_rules) if a permission error occurs. This offers clear context for when and how to invoke the tool.

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