Get a SAML certificate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description transparently discloses a key behavioral trait: the path is unconfirmed and may need correction on first real use, which is critical information beyond the annotations. This adds valuable context about reliability without contradicting 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?

The description is concise at three sentences, front-loading the core purpose. The additional path caveat is useful but feels slightly verbose for an AI agent; it could be more terse. Still, it earns its place by providing critical behavioral context. No unnecessary filler.

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 complexity (simple read tool with 2 params, no output schema, but path uncertainty), the description adequately covers what it does, its return content (metadata with fingerprint and expiry), and a key caveat. It could include the expected return format or what happens if the path is wrong, but overall it's sufficient for a tool with strong annotations and few parameters.

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 0%, meaning the description carries the full burden for parameter semantics. It mentions 'by id' and references 'saml_id' and 'certificate_id' in the path discussion, but does not explicitly describe what the two required parameter values (uuid strings) represent or how they are used. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's property names, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 reads a single SAML certificate's metadata (fingerprint, expiry) by ID. The verb 'read' and resource 'SAML certificate' are specific and unambiguous, and the mention of 'by id' distinguishes it from the sibling scaleway_iam_list_saml_certificates which lists multiple certificates.

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 usage context by referencing the list tool's path and noting this is for a single item, but it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like the list tool or get_saml_config. There's no 'use when' or 'use instead' guidance, leaving the agent to infer it should be used when a specific certificate ID is known.

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