audit_rds_posture

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: it scans every RDS instance, assigns HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW severities, and returns the {check, ok, findings[], scanned} envelope with per-finding fields. This gives the agent a clear model of what the tool will do and return.

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 organized into three dense, purposeful parts: a one-line purpose statement, a scope-and-severity explanation, and a return envelope description. Every sentence adds value and the most identifying information is front-loaded.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description correctly documents the return shape including the envelope and finding fields. It is nearly complete for a read-only RDS audit, but the region parameter's default and format are left under-specified.

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 schema has one optional region parameter with 0% description coverage. The prose mentions 'in the region,' implying the parameter scopes the scan, but it does not explain the null default, accepted region format, or behavior when omitted. The description partially compensates but leaves the parameter semantics implicit.

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 opens with 'Audit RDS instance posture' and immediately lists the three concrete dimensions checked: public accessibility, storage encryption, and deletion protection. This specific verb+resource+scope clearly distinguishes it from the sibling audit tools, which target accounts, lambdas, EBS volumes, security groups, 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 makes the usage context clear by stating that it scans every RDS DB instance in the region and reports posture findings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as pointing to audit_full_posture for a broader audit, so it misses the full exclusion guidance.

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