audit_cloudwatch_logs_ia_opportunities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the scan and default region behavior, and mentions unsupported features. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or disclose potential side effects.

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 two short paragraphs: purpose and criteria, then args and examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 an output schema (so return values are covered elsewhere), the description covers purpose, criteria, parameter, and a key limitation. It is complete for an audit 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 only parameter 'regions' is explained in the description with default behavior ('Defaults to all opted-in regions'), adding meaning beyond the schema which only provides title and default null. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates.

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 finds CloudWatch Log groups to migrate to Infrequent Access class, specifies cost savings, and defines candidates with criteria (older than 30 days, >1GB/month, on STANDARD). It is distinct from sibling audit tools like 'audit_cloudwatch_orphaned_alarms'.

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 explains when to use the tool (to find log groups for migration) and includes a note about IA limitations. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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