get_instance_deep_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fully discloses what the tool returns (percentiles, recommendations) and the parameters. It does not mention that it is read-only or any rate limits, but the nature of a deep analysis implies non-destructive behavior.

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 well-structured: first sentence on purpose, then returns, then 'Args:' block, then 'Examples:'. It is concise with no wasted words and front-loads key 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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers parameters thoroughly, specifies return types, and gives examples. It could mention if there are any instance type or region restrictions, but it is largely complete.

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 compensates fully with a detailed 'Args' section that includes descriptions, defaults, an example value for instance_id, and a max constraint for lookback_days. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema type-only definitions.

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 'Deep CloudWatch analysis for a specific EC2 instance' and lists the return data (CPU, network, disk percentiles, rightsizing recommendation, Compute Optimizer recommendation). This verb-resource-combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_ecs_rightsizing_recommendations or get_rds_rightsizing_recommendations.

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?

Examples like 'Is i-0abc1234 over-provisioned?' indicate when to use, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_rightsizing_recommendations). No exclusions or when-not-to-use are provided.

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