get_vng

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses parameter defaults (account_id to env var) and provides an example vng_id format, which is helpful. However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., if VNG not found), permissions needed, or whether the operation is safe and idempotent. Some behavioral traits are covered, but gaps remain.

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 extremely concise with three short sentences. It front-loads the purpose immediately, then provides parameter details without any redundant or extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it still lacks completeness regarding typical response structure, error handling, or the scope of 'details.' The description covers essentials but leaves the full behavior somewhat ambiguous.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates well by explaining each parameter: vng_id is the VNG/launch spec ID with an example, and account_id is optional with default to an env var. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, though it could include further constraints like allowed patterns.

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 'Get details of a specific AWS VNG (launch spec)', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_vngs or filter_vngs_by_tag by focusing on a single VNG. There is no tautology; the description adds useful context such as 'launch spec'.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_vngs or filter_vngs_by_tag. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or comparisons to siblings. The only implicit hint is 'specific', but no direct contrast is made.

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