List Scaleway Object Storage buckets

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

Annotations already mark this as readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe, read-only operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by stating lists are region-specific, which is a key non-obvious behavior for an agent to understand. There is no contradiction with 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that packs essential information: the verb (list), resource (buckets), scoping (one region), and a clarifying contrast with AWS. There is zero waste; 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, simple list operation), the description is largely complete. It explains the region-scoping quirk, which is the most critical missing piece from the schema. However, it doesn't mention that the output will be a list of bucket names/structure, but with no output schema and annotations covering safety, this is a minor gap for such a straightforward tool.

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% – the single optional parameter 'region' is well-documented in the schema with its default value. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that scoping to a region is required due to Scaleway's architecture, which justifies the presence and role of the parameter. A score of 4 reflects that the description adds useful context beyond the schema's 100% coverage.

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 very clearly states the tool lists Object Storage buckets and crucially adds that buckets are region-scoped on Scaleway, unlike AWS's account-wide namespace. This specific verb and scope definitively distinguishes it from any sibling tool, especially the many IAM and audit tools.

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 should be used to list buckets in a specific region, and the parenthetical contrast with AWS provides important context for users familiar with other providers. There are no alternatives among the siblings for listing buckets (scaleway_s3_list_objects lists objects within a bucket), but explicit 'when not to use' guidance is missing, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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