AWS FinOps MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't reveal important behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it makes API calls that count toward rate limits, what format the output takes, or how 'extended period' is determined. The description is functional but lacks operational context.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundant information. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward finding 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 tool has an output schema (which will document return values) and no annotations, the description is minimally complete for a simple query tool. However, with 7 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no behavioral context, the description should do more to explain authentication requirements and operational characteristics. It's adequate but leaves significant gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only mentions 'extended period' which loosely relates to the 'period' parameter, but doesn't explain the 6 other authentication parameters (region_name, profile_name, role_arn, access_key, secret_access_key, session_token) or their relationships. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the parameter names themselves.

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 the action ('Find') and target resource ('CloudWatch alarms') with a specific condition ('INSUFFICIENT_DATA state for extended period'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'find_orphaned_cloudwatch_alarms' by focusing on state-based unused detection rather than orphaned resources. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings in the 'find_unused_*' category.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or how it differs from other cost optimization or monitoring tools in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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