list_idle_resources

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

The description discloses that results are sorted by monthly waste descending and that protected resources are flagged but not acted on. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not mention rate limits or authentication needs, but it adequately covers key behaviors.

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 with a clear opening verb phrase, bullet points for resource types, and examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no output schema and 3 parameters, the description is fairly complete: it lists resources, ordering, and protection handling. However, it lacks details on return format (e.g., fields returned) and scope (e.g., all accounts or current).

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions regions, min_idle_days, and resource_types indirectly via examples, but does not explicitly define each parameter's purpose or valid values. More detailed parameter guidance is needed.

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 it scans for idle/wasted AWS resources, listing specific resource types like unattached EBS volumes, unused Elastic IPs, old snapshots, stopped EC2 instances, and load balancers with no healthy targets. This distinguishes it from sibling audit tools that focus on other waste patterns.

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 implies usage for identifying idle resources before cleanup, with examples like 'Find idle resources wasting money in AWS.' However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools like 'audit_aws_waste' or 'scan_waste_patterns', which would provide clearer guidance on when to choose this tool.

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