audit_rds_manual_snapshots

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains the tool scans regions, flags old snapshots based on age threshold, and mentions cost. It implies read-only nature (audit), but does not explicitly state it does not modify resources. For a read-only audit tool, this is good transparency but could be more explicit.

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?

Description is concise with a clear opening, bulleted Args, and examples. Every sentence adds value. No redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and usage examples. It does not describe the output format, but that is covered by the schema. For an audit tool with no annotations, this is fairly complete. Minor gap: could mention it returns a list of snapshot 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?

Description adds meaning to both parameters: 'regions' defaults to all opted-in regions, 'age_threshold_days' defaults to 30 days and flags older snapshots. Schema coverage is effectively 100% as both params are described. Description adds context beyond schema types and defaults.

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?

Description clearly states the tool audits RDS manual snapshots for waste, identifies orphaned and old snapshots. It distinguishes from other audit tools by specifying RDS manual snapshots. The verb 'audits' and resource 'RDS manual snapshots' are specific.

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?

Description provides examples of when to use ('Find orphaned RDS snapshots from deleted databases', 'How much are we paying for old RDS manual snapshots?') but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among sibling audit tools. Lack of exclusions slightly reduces score.

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