check_ec2_setup

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

With no annotations, the description clearly states read-only behavior and that it does not launch instances, fully disclosing key behavioral traits. It could benefit from additional detail about what 'setup checks' entails, but is sufficient.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words, effectively communicating the tool's purpose and key constraint.

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 zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It could provide more context on the output or its role among siblings, but is largely complete for a simple read-only check tool.

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 in the schema, and schema description coverage is 100%. With zero parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description does not need to add parameter information.

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 specifies the verb 'check' and the resource 'EC2/SSM setup', and explicitly states it is read-only and does not launch instances, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_ec2_smoke_run.

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 implies usage for read-only setup checks without launching instances, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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