Get Scaleway bucket versioning state

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

The description adds value beyond the annotations by explaining that the response can be an empty string, 'Enabled', or 'Suspended', and includes the important exception about Object Lock. However, it doesn't mention whether the tool requires specific IAM permissions or what happens if the bucket does not exist. Given the rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint: false), the description is still quite transparent about the read-only behavior.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that efficiently communicate the purpose, the return values, and an important edge case. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no wasted words.

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 with only two parameters, no output schema, and excellent annotations. The description fully covers the behavior: it lists possible outputs, notes the Object Lock interaction, and is self-contained. There is no need for additional details on return structure or error handling given the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but it does not need to since the schema fully documents both parameters. No extra context is provided about what region defaults to or how bucket names are validated, but the schema already includes descriptions and constraints.

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 bucket's versioning state, listing the three possible values and immediately distinguishing this from any write or configuration tool. It stands out among siblings like scaleway_s3_set_bucket_versioning and scaleway_s3_enable_object_lock by focusing solely on a read operation for versioning state.

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 provides explicit usage context by noting when this tool should be used (to check versioning state) and includes a critical caveat about Object Lock freezing versioning. It implicitly advises against using this tool when you need to set versioning, pointing users to a different sibling (scaleway_s3_set_bucket_versioning). The live-verified date adds trustworthiness.

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