get_alias

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys read-only retrieval and alias-to-ARN resolution, but it omits details about response contents, error behavior for missing aliases, or permission requirements. This leaves some uncertainty for an agent.

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 three short sentences with the use-case guidance front-loaded before the plain operation statement and parameter details. There is no filler or redundant information beyond a minor restatement of the tool's purpose.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description is mostly complete: it explains when to call it and how to format the argument. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not explicitly describe the return value structure or failure modes, so an agent must infer some behavior from the tool name and purpose.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description explicitly documents the only parameter: alias_name must be the full alias including the 'alias/' prefix. This adds critical format guidance that the schema lacks and fully compensates for the missing schema description.

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 operation—resolving an alias to its key ARN or verifying the key an alias currently points to—and clearly identifies the resource (alias). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_aliases, which handle broader listing rather than point-in-time alias resolution.

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 first sentence explicitly tells the agent when to call this tool: when resolving an alias or verifying which key an alias points to. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for this simple get operation.

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