audit_spot_diversification

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the risk threshold (<3 types = HIGH_RISK) and best practice, and notes that regions default to all opted-in. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or any other side effects. The behavioral context is adequate but not fully 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?

The description is structured with a clear first sentence, then risk classification, best practice, parameter explanation, and examples. It is efficient but could be slightly more concise; the examples are helpful but somewhat redundant with the 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 tool has an output schema (which explains return values), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameters, risk categories, and usage examples. It is complete for a simple audit tool, though additional detail on output format could be added.

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 adds meaning to the only parameter: 'regions: AWS regions to scan. Defaults to all opted-in regions.' This goes beyond the schema's type definition and default null, providing useful execution context.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Audits ASGs using spot for instance type diversification.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like 'audit_aws_waste' or 'recommend_spot_adoption' by focusing solely on spot diversification risk.

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 two explicit example questions that indicate when to use the tool: 'Are our ASGs diversified enough for spot?' and 'Which ASGs are at risk from spot interruptions?' However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives among siblings.

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