audit_textract_environment_waste

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as analyzing, identifying, and estimating, which implies a read-only action. However, it does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, what permissions are needed, or any side effects. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 approximately 70 words, well-structured with a summary paragraph followed by a use-case list. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no superfluous 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 the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a clear problem statement and expected output (identifies functions and estimates waste). It lacks details on return format but is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema has 0% coverage (no description in schema), but the description adds meaning by stating the parameter 'days' is the number of days to analyze with a default of 30. This compensates for the missing schema documentation.

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 the tool analyzes Textract spend by environment to find non-production API calls, identifies wasteful Lambda functions/services, and estimates monthly waste. This is a specific verb+resource, distinguishing it from siblings like audit_aws_waste or audit_cloudwatch_logs_ia_opportunities.

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 a bullet list of when to use: when Textract is a top cost driver, user asks about AI/ML service costs, user asks why Textract bill is high, or user wants to reduce document processing costs. It provides clear context but no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use.

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