audit_public_buckets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description goes far beyond them by detailing exactly what is checked, how findings are classified, what the returned structure is, severity semantics, and how errors are handled. This is unusually transparent.

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 appropriately structured: a one-sentence summary, a bulleted list of checks and severities, and a concise explanation of the return value and error behavior. Every sentence carries useful information for calling the tool correctly.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description completely covers invocation semantics, return shape, finding schema, severity interpretation, and error handling. No important behavioral detail is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter meaning because none exists, but it clearly identifies the account-wide scope of the operation, which is the only relevant input context.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Audit every S3 bucket in the account for public exposure.' It clearly differentiates the tool from sibling audit tools by naming the specific AWS service, the account-wide scope, and the security concern it addresses.

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 makes the tool's context clear: it is a focused S3 public-exposure audit covering Public Access Block, bucket policies, and ACLs. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, but the scope is specific enough that an agent can select it appropriately among the sibling audit tools.

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