get_affected_entities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses useful scope filters ('open', 'active') and the output grouping, but does not state read-only status explicitly, permissions, pagination, or other operational traits. The presence of an output schema offloads return-format details.

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 definition is front-loaded and concise: two summary sentences followed by example prompts. The three example prompts are somewhat redundant, but they help with routing and are not excessive.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides adequate scope and output context. The main missing piece is an explicit statement that this operates at the caller's account level rather than the organization level, which would help differentiate it from the sibling org tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate because the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 specific verb and resource ('Get affected entities') plus scoping ('for all open AWS health events') and output grouping ('grouped by event and status'). It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling 'get_org_affected_entities', leaving the account-vs-organization distinction to be inferred from the name.

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?

Three example prompts imply intended usage contexts, such as checking current AWS issues or impacted resources. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., the org-level variant) and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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