get_infra_overview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains the `configured` flag and its implications when false, the structure and meaning of the `dataHealth` block, and the critical interpretation that a non-ok source means 'not read' rather than 'none exist'. It also clarifies that no AWS re-reads occur on tool calls and directs to run `infrawise analyze` to refresh, which is essential behavioral context.

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 longer than typical but every sentence earns its place, covering purpose, usage, configuration caveats, and dataHealth structure. It is front-loaded with the primary function, then progressively explains important nuances. The length is justified by the tool's complexity and absence of an output schema, though it could be slightly tighter.

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 the tool's broad scope, the lack of an output schema, and the absence of annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what is returned, how to interpret edge cases (configured flag, source status), and the behavior of the sole parameter. It also places the tool in context relative to siblings, making it fully self-sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 sole parameter maxAgeSeconds has 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description references the dataHealth block and withinRequestedAge but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema fully explains the parameter's behavior, the description does not need to compensate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns a compact infrastructure snapshot' and enumerates exactly what it includes (service counts, databases, queues, topics, secrets, lambdas, high-severity findings). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_graph_summary by saying 'Prefer this over get_graph_summary for quick orientation', making the purpose and scope unmistakable.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Call this first at the start of any database or infrastructure task' and contrasts with get_graph_summary: 'use get_graph_summary only when you need every node, edge, and finding in full.' It also notes that this tool's dataHealth.sources covers every source, reinforcing when it is the appropriate choice.

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