Project Costs

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. 'Estimate' suggests a read-only operation, but there is no statement about whether it is non-destructive, what inputs it requires (e.g., a selected profile), how it handles multiple resource configurations, or what the response contains. The absence of any behavioral context leaves the agent uncertain about side effects and prerequisites.

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, front-loading the core purpose. However, it is under-specified – it omits critical usage and behavioral details that could be added without sacrificing conciseness. It is not verbose, but it does not earn its place as the sole narrative; a few additional clauses could significantly improve clarity.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown) and a relatively simple parameter set, the description still falls short. It does not explain the expected format of resource objects, how region interacts with resources, or the output shape. It also does not clarify whether this tool is for estimation only or if it commits changes. The lack of usage context and behavioral details makes it incomplete for an agent to call correctly without external knowledge.

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 100%, so both parameters have descriptions in the schema (region: 'AWS region for pricing'; resources: 'List of resource configurations'). The tool description adds no further parameter meaning, leaving the structure of each resource object undefined despite additionalProperties: true. Since the schema covers the basics, the baseline of 3 applies, but the lack of elaboration on resource configuration format is a gap.

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 ('Estimate') and a specific resource ('costs for proposed AWS resources'). It implies a forward-looking estimation distinct from existing-cost tools like get_cost_breakdown, though it does not explicitly name a sibling. The phrase 'proposed' hints at pre-deployment scenarios, which differentiates it from cost breakdown of existing usage.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites (like needing a profile/account), or exclusions (e.g., not for existing resources). The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone, which is insufficient given the rich set of sibling tools.

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