get_rightsizing_recommendations

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 explains the behavior: analyzing EC2 instances, using CPU thresholds, and returning recommendations with savings. It does not disclose any prerequisites (e.g., connected AWS account) or rate limits, but the behavior is sufficiently clear for a non-destructive tool.

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 yet informative, including an overview, parameter explanations, and example use cases. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

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 only two parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core purpose, parameters, and usage examples. It could mention the output format or that it works only on connected AWS accounts, 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining both parameters: avg_cpu_threshold as the threshold for average CPU below which instances are flagged, and max_cpu_threshold for peak CPU. Defaults are also given, adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 EC2 instances with low CPU utilization over 14 days and returns rightsizing recommendations with projected savings. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_ecs_rightsizing_recommendations and get_rds_rightsizing_recommendations by explicitly targeting EC2.

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?

Example questions like 'Which EC2 instances are over-provisioned?' provide clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives.

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