recommend_spot_adoption

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 what the tool does (finds instances, uses data sources, returns classifications) but does not explicitly state whether it makes changes or is read-only, nor does it mention permissions or rate limits. It adds some context but could be more 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 concise, starting with the core purpose, then details, then args, then examples. Every sentence adds value, and it is well-organized. No wasted words.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, simple output) and existence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, inputs, and examples. It could mention error conditions or prerequisites, but it is adequate. Score 4.

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 provides a brief description of the 'regions' parameter ('AWS regions to scan. Defaults to all opted-in regions'). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, but it could be more detailed about region format or accepted values. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'finds on-demand EC2 instances to migrate to spot' and the resource (EC2 instances). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the methodology (env tags, ASG membership, CPU variance, Spot Advisor interruption data) and output categories (RECOMMENDED, POSSIBLE, NOT_RECOMMENDED). This is specific and informative.

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 provides examples that imply usage (e.g., 'Which EC2 instances should we move to spot?'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other similar tools like 'audit_spot_diversification' or other recommendation tools. It lacks exclusion criteria or explicit alternatives, so it scores 3.

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