AWS FinOps MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'find' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires specific AWS permissions, how it determines 'unused' status, or any rate limits or side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, earning full marks for brevity and structure.

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 complexity of 7 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is incomplete as it doesn't explain parameter meanings or behavioral traits. However, the presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, keeping it at a baseline adequacy level.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all 7 parameters. It only references 'older than specified days,' which loosely relates to the 'age_days' parameter, but ignores the other 6 parameters (e.g., region_name, profile_name, authentication details). This fails to add meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 verb 'find' and the resource 'unused ECR images older than specified days,' making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_unused_amis' or 'find_unused_snapshots,' which target different AWS resources, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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, such as other 'find_unused_' tools for different AWS services. It lacks context about prerequisites, dependencies, or typical scenarios for invoking it, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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