audit_root_account_posture

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses that it reads the IAM account summary, defines finding severities (HIGH for missing MFA, CRITICAL for root access keys), and details the exact return shape {check, ok, findings[], scanned} including scanned=1 and raw summary values in findings. This is rich behavioral context.

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?

Three tight sentences lead with the tool's core purpose, then explain the data source and findings, then give the return contract. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant or filler information.

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 audit tool with no output schema, the description is fully complete: it names the checks, the severity levels, the response structure, and what each finding's detail contains. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool and interpret the result.

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 and the schema already covers 100% of them, so the baseline is 4. The description confirms there is nothing to configure and instead focuses on what the tool returns, which is appropriate for a no-input audit tool.

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 action ('Audit the root account') and a specific resource ('root account') with explicit checks: missing MFA and active root access keys. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling audit tools by scoping itself to the root identity.

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 clear context that this tool is for auditing the root account only, which implies when to choose it over sibling tools like audit_users_without_mfa. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the root-account scope is unambiguous.

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