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 what is found ('unused internet gateways') but omits critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific AWS permissions, potential rate limits, or how results are returned (e.g., list format, pagination). The description is insufficient for a tool with 7 parameters and no annotation support.

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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for the tool's function, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, behavioral context, and usage guidance. While the output schema may cover return values, the description does not adequately prepare an agent for effective tool invocation, especially for authentication and scoping parameters.

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 description adds no meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage for its 7 parameters (e.g., region_name, profile_name, role_arn). It fails to explain what these parameters do, their relationships, or default behaviors, leaving the schema as the sole source of information without compensatory details.

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 specific action ('Find') and resource ('Internet Gateways'), with precise criteria ('not attached or attached to VPCs with no resources'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'find_unused_amis' or 'find_unused_security_groups' by focusing on internet gateways, making the purpose unambiguous.

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, prerequisites, or integration with other tools. It lacks context about typical scenarios (e.g., cost optimization, security cleanup) or comparisons to similar tools in the sibling list, leaving usage decisions to inference.

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