get_eventbridge_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses returned fields and indicates a read-only operation ('returns'). It doesn't mention error conditions or permissions, but for a simple listing tool, the transparency is adequate.

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 two sentences: first states what it returns, second provides usage scenarios. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. Concise and well-structured.

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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, returned fields, and usage context. It mentions all relevant details for a simple 'get all' tool, making it 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?

There are no parameters (input schema is empty), so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter meaning, but none is needed. Baseline score for 0 parameters is 4.

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 'Returns all EventBridge rules' with specific fields (name, state, schedule/event pattern, targets). The verb 'returns' and resource 'EventBridge rules' are precise, and the tool is distinct from siblings like get_lambda_overview.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this when checking what schedule or event triggers a Lambda, or when reviewing rule coverage across the account.' It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for most agents.

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