Get Well-Architected warnings

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation, lowering the burden. The description adds useful context by noting the return structure (type, component, message) and the word 'Free,' which may indicate no cost or no restriction. It does not contradict the annotation and provides a bit more behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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 one concise sentence that gets straight to the point. The extra 'Free' is a minor addition but does not detract. There is no unnecessary verbosity, and the key 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description fully covers the essential aspects: what it lists and what each item contains. It does not need to explain return values in more detail since the fields are listed. The description is sufficient for an agent to know 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?

The schema fully documents the only parameter (diagram_id) with a description ('The diagram id'), achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Well-Architected findings for a diagram'), and it specifies what each finding contains (type, component, message). This makes it distinct from siblings like fix_warning, which modifies warnings, and get_diagram, which retrieves the diagram itself.

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 implies usage: to retrieve warnings for a diagram. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as fix_warning for addressing warnings, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions. This is acceptable but lacks explicit guidance.

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