Get Scaleway bucket encryption config

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false — covering safety. The description adds critical behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool returns an HTTP 200 in empty config cases (not an error, unlike AWS), the config is a real toggleable setting (not inert), and the description documents that a previous version of the doc was wrong and has been corrected after live verification. This is exemplary transparency about the tool's actual behavior and its edge cases.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose ('Read the bucket's S3 default-encryption configuration') in the first sentence, which is ideal. The remaining sentences add important behavioral nuance. It's on the longer side for a read tool but each sentence earns its place — however, the parenthetical about AWS comparison could be tightened slightly to reduce verbosity while maintaining the differentiation value.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, read-only, no output schema) so completeness requirements are lower. The description covers the key behavioral nuance (empty vs error) and confirms the setting is real. It doesn't specify what the response format looks like or what fields to expect in a non-empty response, but since there's no output schema, a mention of the structure (e.g., 'returns an encryption configuration object with algorithm and key fields') would make it score 5.

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% (both parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description adds no additional parameter semantics — it doesn't clarify the format of 'bucket' (ARN vs name) or the scope of 'region' beyond what's in the schema. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't add new meaning to parameters but also doesn't contradict.

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 'Read the bucket's S3 default-encryption configuration' — a specific verb ('read') coupled with a precise resource ('bucket S3 default-encryption configuration'). It also immediately distinguishes this tool from similar S3 bucket read tools by highlighting the behavior difference vs AWS, and its sibling context includes other S3 config readers, so this positioning helps the agent differentiate.

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 doesn't explicitly say 'when to use this vs alternatives', but it strongly implies when: use this when you need to inspect the current encryption state, not when you need to set/modify it (that's put_bucket_encryption/delete_bucket_encryption siblings). It provides context that the encryption setting is real and toggleable, guiding agents away from treating it as inert metadata. However, explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or mention of alternatives beyond the named siblings would push this to 5.

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