get_aws_reference

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It adequately implies a read-only operation via 'get' and '조회', but does not disclose idempotency, rate limits, or whether the call has side effects. For a simple retrieval, this is sufficient but not exemplary.

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?

Single sentence clearly states purpose and key parameters. No extraneous information, front-loaded with the action and resource.

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?

With 2 simple enum parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential inputs. Missing return value description, but given the tool's simplicity and sibling context, it is largely complete.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions ('서비스 유형', '서비스 규모'), and the description merely repeats those concepts without adding meaning. Since coverage is 100%, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses specific verb '조회' (retrieve) and resource 'AWS Well-Architected 기반 아키텍처 패턴', clearly stating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like design_architecture, which implies custom design rather than retrieving existing patterns.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention when not to use it or provide context for selecting between this and sibling tools like get_scaling_strategy or recommend_cpu_arch.

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