recommend_bedrock_model_routing

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

No annotations provided; description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool analyzes usage and estimates savings, implying read-only behavior. While it doesn't explicitly state no side effects, the analytical nature is clear.

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?

Description is well-structured with main explanation, usage scenarios list, and parameter details. It is concise without extraneous information, though the 'Args:' section could be integrated into the main text.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, use cases, and parameter sufficiently. It does not describe return format, but that is minimal for an analysis tool.

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 documentation coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains the 'days' parameter as 'Number of days to analyze' in the Args section, which provides necessary context 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?

Description clearly states the tool analyzes Bedrock model usage to identify invocations that can be routed to cheaper models without quality loss, with specific cost comparison (Sonnet 20x more expensive than Haiku). This distinguishes it from sibling audit tools.

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?

Explicitly lists five specific scenarios when to use the tool (e.g., Bedrock is a top cost driver, user asks about LLM costs). Provides clear context for selection.

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