audit_cloudwatch_orphaned_alarms

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions that alarms get stuck in INSUFFICIENT_DATA and notes cost, but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, nor does it cover authentication or side effects. Some behavioral context is given, but gaps remain.

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 a brief intro, cost context, parameter explanation, and examples. It is well-structured and front-loaded, with no redundant information. A slightly more streamlined cost sentence could improve it.

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 and only two simple parameters, the description covers the essential functionality. It lacks prerequisites (e.g., AWS credentials) and region handling details, but overall provides sufficient context 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description includes an 'Args' section that explains both parameters: regions (defaults to all opted-in regions) and max_results (default 50). This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only provides names and types.

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 'Finds CloudWatch alarms on deleted resources', which is a specific verb and resource. It also mentions cost implications, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like audit_cloudwatch_metric_cardinality or scan_cloudwatch_waste. The purpose is clear enough for most cases.

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 provides example queries like 'Find orphaned CloudWatch alarms', which implies usage, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., scan_cloudwatch_waste). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided.

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