aws_ec2

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it lists actions, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether 'terminate' is destructive and irreversible, what permissions are required, whether operations are synchronous/asynchronous, or any rate limits. The description mentions actions but lacks operational context needed for safe use.

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 extremely concise - a single parenthetical phrase listing actions. While efficient, it may be too terse given the tool's complexity. Every word earns its place, but more context would be helpful for such a multi-action tool with many parameters.

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 complex tool with 13 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address the tool's multi-action nature, parameter dependencies across actions, return values, error conditions, or AWS-specific considerations like region requirements and authentication.

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 13 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no parameter information beyond what's implied by action names. It doesn't explain which parameters apply to which actions (e.g., 'instanceType' likely applies to 'create' but not 'list'), parameter dependencies, or what values are expected. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 manages AWS EC2 instances and lists specific actions (list, create, start, stop, terminate), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'aws_cloudformation' or 'aws_vpc' that also manage AWS resources, so it doesn't fully distinguish from alternatives.

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 the many sibling AWS tools (e.g., aws_s3 for storage, aws_lambda for serverless functions). There's no mention of prerequisites, authentication requirements, or specific scenarios where EC2 management is appropriate versus other AWS services.

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