Get the Organization's security settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as false, making the safe, read-only nature of the tool fully transparent. The description adds value beyond annotations by detailing the exact fields returned (password-renewal enforcement, grace period, lockout threshold, max expiration durations). It does not contradict annotations, so no issue there.

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 of 16 words. It front-loads the purpose ('Read org-wide auth policy') and then lists specific fields. Every word is meaningful; there is no fluff, repetition, or 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?

For a simple, parameterless, read-only tool with no output schema and a description that enumerates the return fields, the description is nearly complete. The only gap is that it does not explicitly state the return format or whether pagination applies (though with no parameters it's likely a single result). Given the tool's low complexity, this is a minor omission.

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% (0 parameters, 0 required), meaning the schema provides complete information. The description does not need to add param-level details. However, it compensates by clearly stating what the return payload covers, which helps the agent understand what data will be retrieved even with no parameters.

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 starts with 'Read org-wide auth policy' and then enumerates the specific security settings returned (password-renewal enforcement, grace period duration, login-attempt lockout threshold, max session/API-key-expiration durations). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like scaleway_iam_get_saml_config (which focuses on SAML) or scaleway_iam_get_user (which focuses on a single user). The verb 'read' and resource 'org-wide auth policy' are specific and unambiguous.

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 this tool is for reading organization-level security settings. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like scaleway_iam_get_saml_config or scaleway_iam_get_user. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., required permissions) or exclusions. Since there is only one read tool for security settings, the need for differentiation is low, but the description misses the opportunity to guide an agent on when this call is appropriate.

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