Get Rightsizing Recommendations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get recommendations' without stating whether it performs read-only queries, what data sources it uses, or what the output contains. The minimal wording implies a read operation but fails to disclose any nuances.

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 short, but that reflects under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks necessary details and does not earn its place as a complete definition; the single sentence is not enough to guide correct usage.

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 tool has three optional parameters, no annotations, and zero schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. While the output schema exists, the description still omits usage context, parameter roles, and behavioral expectations, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention region, services, or lookback_days at all, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names alone. This is a significant gap for a tool with three optional parameters.

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 (right-sizing recommendations for EC2 and RDS instances), which unambiguously identifies the tool's core purpose. However, it does not distinguish it from siblings like get_best_practices or find_idle_resources, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description omits any context about prerequisites, selection criteria, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on choosing this over get_cost_breakdown or find_idle_resources.

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