audit_efs_cross_az_mounts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions scanning regions with a default of all common regions and notes cost implications, but lacks details on side effects, auth requirements, or whether it modifies state.

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, an 'Args' section, and examples. Every sentence provides value, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 simple audit tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter, and examples. It does not specify output format, but that is acceptable given low complexity.

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: 'AWS regions to scan. Defaults to all common regions.' This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, which only defines type and default null.

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 it 'Finds EC2 instances mounting EFS from a different AZ.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling audit tools by focusing on cross-AZ EFS mounts.

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 includes examples that clarify when to use the tool, such as 'Find EFS mounts crossing availability zones.' It implicitly suggests usage for cost auditing but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or list when not to use it.

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