aws_read_resource

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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior; the description adds meaningful context about internal routing to per-resource-type views and profile resolution based on the ARN account. However, it omits details about error handling or permissions, though these are less critical given the output schema and 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 short and efficiently structured: a purpose sentence followed by concise argument definitions. Every element earns its place, and the ARN example is immediately useful.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with read-only annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, how to provide inputs, and expected routing behavior. It could mention siblings or failure modes, but it remains complete enough for straightforward invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by defining the ARN format with an example and explaining the profile parameter as an override that defaults to the ARN's account. This adds actionable 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 states a specific verb ('Describe'), a clear resource scope (single AWS resource given an ARN), and distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning routing to the resource-type-specific view. Including an example ARN further removes ambiguity.

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 the tool should be used when you have a full ARN and want a resource description, but it never explicitly names alternative tools or exclusion conditions. It also does not clarify when to use aws_describe_view or aws_query instead.

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