it_ops_aws_cli

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

Annotations already flag the tool as potentially destructive and non-idempotent. The description adds that execution routes through the domain-agent dispatcher under the caller's JWT, tenant, and company scope, which is useful auth/routing context. It does not, however, disclose that the underlying action may run arbitrary or destructive AWS commands beyond what the annotations imply.

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 short, front-loaded with the action name, and each sentence earns its place; the Args list is scannable. It loses a point only for omitting an example or usage note without adding bulk.

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 potentially destructive generic AWS CLI wrapper, the description lacks the information needed to invoke it safely and effectively: no capabilities, no parameter format details, no distinction from `it_ops_aws_cli_execute`, and no warning about side effects. The presence of an output schema covers return shape, but invocation semantics remain incomplete.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description's Args section is the only source of parameter meaning. It identifies `message` as a free-text objective and `inputs` as an optional JSON string, but gives no structure, allowed keys, or examples, leaving an agent unable to construct valid `inputs` or know how specific a `message` must be.

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 names a specific action (`aws_cli`) and says the tool runs it via the domain-agent dispatcher, but it never states what the AWS CLI action actually does or which AWS operations it supports. This leaves the purpose opaque and does little to distinguish it from sibling tools like `it_ops_aws_cli_execute` or `it_ops_cloud_ops`.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives mentioned, and no exclusion criteria. The routing/scope sentence explains mechanics, not when an agent should select this tool over `it_ops_aws_cli_execute` or other it_ops AWS tools.

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