List rules on a Scaleway IAM Policy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context about returning 'permission sets + scope' but doesn't disclose details about pagination limits, whether the returned list is complete or chunked, or what happens if the policy_id doesn't exist. Baseline 3 is appropriate given good 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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence defines purpose and key details, the second provides usage guidance. 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?

This is a simple tool with 1 parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects. The description covers the core purpose, scoping guidance, and what the output contains. It could mention whether the tool returns empty vs non-empty results differently, but overall it's complete for a straightforward read-only list operation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that policy_id is required and effectively explains the return semantics (permission sets + scope as project_ids or organization_id), which adds value beyond the schema's uuid format definition.

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 gets actual rules (permission sets + scope) attached to a Policy. The verb 'list' and resource 'policy rules' are specific and distinct from siblings like scaleway_iam_get_policy or scaleway_iam_set_policy_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 explicitly tells when to use this tool ('see what a policy really grants') and contrasts it with scaleway_iam_get_policy, telling the agent not to use that alternative for this purpose. This is exemplary guidance.

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