s3_source

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'Analyze' and phrases like 'Analyze S3 data source structure, format, and optimization opportunities' signal a read-only analysis operation. The deprecation status is also a useful behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that no data is modified or mention permission requirements, but the analysis framing makes the safety profile reasonably clear.

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 compact and well-structured: a deprecation banner followed by two short mode bullets. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no redundant repetition of schema defaults or obvious filler.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to describe return values. It covers the two modes, their parameters, and the preferred alternative. The only notable gap is the lack of an explicit statement about side effects or access requirements, but for a read-oriented analysis tool this is a minor omission.

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. It does by mapping parameters to modes: 's3_path (required), include_schema_inference' and 'table_path (required), analyze_history.' It also clarifies conditional requiredness that the flat schema cannot express. The boolean parameters are named but not elaborated, though their purposes are fairly self-evident from their names.

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 opens with a deprecation notice and then states the tool's purpose: 'Analyze S3 data sources and Delta tables.' It enumerates two specific modes, 'analyze' and 'delta', each with its own resource target, making the tool's scope explicit and distinguishable from siblings like glue_job or glue_s3.

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 explicitly instructs agents to prefer glue_job: 'Deprecated. Prefer glue_job. Still registered this minor version.' It also gives mode-specific guidance by listing which parameters apply to which mode, so an agent can decide when to call this tool and with what arguments.

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