audit_cloud_cost

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'rough estimate' but does not explain computation, data sources, limitations, or whether the operation has side effects.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. Key information is missing, making it under-specified rather than efficiently communicated.

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 tool estimating cloud costs from IaC, the description is incomplete. It lacks explanation of output, accuracy, input requirements, and does not leverage the schema or provide expected return values.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not elaborate on the two parameters. It alludes to 'from IaC text' but provides no detail on expected format, constraints, or how the cloud_provider enum affects the estimate.

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 provides a rough monthly SKU catalog estimate for AWS or GCP from IaC text, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from sibling tools focused on security, compliance, and scanning.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives is provided. The description only mentions 'from IaC text' but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to other audit tools.

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