audit_ebs_exposure

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

The description deeply explains behavior beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations: it scans all volumes, flags unencrypted volumes as MEDIUM, checks createVolumePermission for public snapshots, flags them CRITICAL, and describes the output dict semantics. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose, then provides dense but relevant operational details, and ends with a useful return-value summary. Every sentence contributes information the agent needs.

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 read-only audit tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is thorough: it covers scope, region fallback, severity mapping, and the return dict structure. An agent can confidently decide when to invoke it and what to expect.

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?

Even though schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully explains the only parameter: region defaults to AWS_REGION or us-east-1 when omitted. This adds meaningful behavioral context that the schema alone does not provide.

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 ('Audit'), a precise resource ('EBS volumes and snapshots'), and the exact goal ('exposure risks'). It clearly differentiates this tool from sibling audit tools that target RDS, security groups, buckets, and other resources.

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 gives clear context on what the tool scans, how region selection works, and what criteria produce findings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use this instead of X,' but the resource-specific scope makes the appropriate use case obvious.

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