run_check

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

Without annotations, the description discloses return format (Dict with findings/summary or error), parameter behaviors (e.g., region defaults to all), and conditional requirements for audit/log accounts. It does not explicitly state read-only or destructive nature, but the context of a security check implies mutation is unlikely.

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 concise with clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the structure facilitates quick scanning for key details.

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 5 parameters, conditional requirements, and an output schema, the description covers the tool's behavior and return values well. Minor gap: it could mention prerequisites like permissions or that some checks may require specific account types, but sibling tools handle listing details.

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%, but the description fully explains each parameter: check_id with example, audit_accounts/log_archive_accounts with context, role_arn as optional, region with default behavior. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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 clearly states the tool performs 'Run a security check and return results,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings that describe, list, or manage checks.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like describe_check or list_checks. The usage is implied by the tool's action, but no when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions are provided.

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