audit_ebs_snapshot_replication

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions waste types and cost implications but does not explicitly state that the audit is read-only or has no side effects. The behavioral traits are partially covered but lack explicit safety guarantees.

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: two sentences plus Args and Examples. It is front-loaded with the purpose and efficient, with no redundant information.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain the return format of findings. Examples hint at cost information but do not specify fields like snapshot ID, source volume, or regions. This leaves a gap 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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates: it explains 'regions' as AWS regions to scan with default all opted-in, and 'max_results' as max findings with default 50. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema 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 'Audits cross-region EBS snapshot replication for waste.' It specifies the resource (EBS snapshot replication), the action (audits), and the scope (cross-region). This distinguishes it from sibling audit tools like audit_aws_waste or scan_waste_patterns.

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 it finds orphaned copies, excessive copies, and old copies, with examples like 'Find orphaned cross-region EBS snapshots.' It implies use for cost waste analysis but does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, though differentiation from siblings is clear.

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