aws_call

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description adds useful details such as execution through --cli-input-json, session-based defaults, return of parsed JSON, and the literal command that was run. It does not warn about reviewing destructive operations, but that burden is partly covered by annotations.

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 information-dense with no filler: core action, naming conventions, parameter format, session behavior, exclusions, and output format are all covered. It is longer than some definitions, but the arbitrary AWS API surface justifies nearly every sentence.

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 an arbitrary low-level AWS call with no output schema, the description covers naming conventions, parameter serialization, session defaults, output handling, and when to use a different approach. It could mention pagination or error behavior, but these are partially handled by sibling tools and the general AWS CLI contract.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful conventions: kebab-case service/operation names, PascalCase API parameter keys, JSON object passing via --cli-input-json, and JMESPath query examples. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions and helps an agent invoke correctly.

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?

Clearly states it runs arbitrary AWS API operations via the aws CLI with kebab-case service and operation names. It distinguishes itself from high-level wrappers by explicitly targeting the low-level API, making it easy for an agent to separate from sibling resource-specific tools.

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?

Explicitly routes high-level wrappers like 'aws s3 cp' or 'aws ec2 wait' to the shell, and frames this tool as the low-level API option. It also clarifies that session profile/region from aws_session_set are used by default and can be overridden per call, giving clear context for when and how to invoke it.

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