Get Scaleway Bucket Policy

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the behavioral detail about returning an error for missing policies, which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether the returned policy is always a JSON string, what format it is in, or any rate-limiting or authentication details. With strong annotations, the bar is higher, and more context would improve the score.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and provides an important behavioral note. Every sentence adds value with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is fairly complete. The error condition clarifies behavior. However, it could mention that the response format is typically a JSON policy string or reference schema, but with no output schema, the description handles the core need well. It is slightly incomplete by not stating the return type explicitly, but overall adequate.

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 does not add additional meaning beyond the schema—it only mentions the bucket policy, not parameters. The schema already describes 'bucket' and 'region' adequately, so the description does not compensate or enhance understanding further.

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 the current Bucket Policy JSON attached to an Object Storage bucket. It uses the specific verb 'Read' and resource 'bucket policy', and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like scaleway_s3_put_bucket_policy and scaleway_s3_delete_bucket_policy by focusing on reading rather than writing or deleting.

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 when you need to read the bucket policy, but it does not explicitly say when to use this versus alternatives. It includes an error condition ('Returns an error if the bucket has no policy'), which hints at when not to use it (if no policy exists), but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of sibling tools.

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