start_ec2_smoke_run_async

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully cover behavioral traits. It mentions 'guarded paid' and async return but omits details on destructive potential, cost implications, authentication needs, or how to handle the run IDs. This leaves significant gaps.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it sacrifices completeness. Front-loading is good, but the lack of essential detail makes it barely adequate.

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 high complexity (9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations), the description is far too brief. It fails to explain the purpose of the confirmation token, how to retrieve status, or what 'guarded' entails. The output schema exists but is not leveraged.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation for any of the 9 parameters. Required parameters like 'confirmation_token' are not justified. The description provides zero semantic value beyond the schema.

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 it starts a 'guarded paid EC2+SSM smoke run' and returns immediately with run IDs. The verb 'start' and resource 'EC2+SSM smoke run' are specific, and the async behavior distinguishes it from the synchronous sibling 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 async usage by noting 'return immediately', but does not explicitly state when to choose this over the synchronous alternative or other planning tools. No exclusions or context are provided.

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