Retrieve detailed configuration and metadata for a named AWS Athena work group to manage its settings and understand its current state.
Get details about a work group
Args: work_group: Work group name
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| work_group | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get details' clearly signals a read-only retrieval operation, but the description does not disclose error behavior, authorization needs, or what happens when the work group does not exist. It is not misleading, but it is thin.
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 short and the main action is front-loaded. The Args block duplicates schema information, but it is not bloated and the overall structure is easy to scan.
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 a single-parameter getter with an output schema, the description is not fatally incomplete. However, it leaves out usage context relative to list_work_groups and does not clarify parameter semantics, so an agent has to do more inference than ideal.
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%, so the description needed to clarify the parameter. 'Work group name' mostly repeats the schema title and parameter name without adding a format, example, or source of valid values. It provides minimal meaning beyond the input 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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('a work group'), and 'details' implies a single-item fetch, which distinguishes it from the sibling list_work_groups. However, it does not specify what 'details' means, so it stops short of being fully specific.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of list_work_groups or any other sibling. The agent must infer the usage from the tool name and the minimal description, with no conditions, alternatives, or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.