list_aliases

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys that this is a read-style listing operation, but it does not describe response structure, pagination behavior beyond the next_token parameter, or whether the key_arn filter is exact or partial. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded with usage context, then lists parameters compactly. There is minor redundancy between 'Call this when auditing...' and 'List aliases...', but no wasted or bloated content.

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 list tool with optional filters, the description covers the main use cases and parameter semantics. It does not describe the return payload, but since there is no output schema and the tool is named list_aliases, the absence is not a critical gap.

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 explain all parameters. It does: key_arn filters, max_results bounds results to 1-100, and next_token handles pagination. This adds meaningful functional meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 tool lists aliases and can filter by key ARN. It also distinguishes itself from sibling alias tools like create_alias, get_alias, update_alias, and delete_alias by framing the operation as an audit/list action.

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 says to call this when auditing all friendly names in the account or finding aliases associated with a specific key. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the usage context is clear enough among the sibling tools.

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