run_full_cost_audit

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses that the audit covers multiple areas, each scanner runs independently, and suggests post-audit actions. However, it does not mention potential duration, cost implications, or safety guarantees like read-only nature, though an audit is inherently read-only. Overall adequate but not fully detailed.

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 first sentence, usage guidelines, list of covered areas, and post-actions. It is slightly verbose due to the enumeration of audit areas, but each sentence serves a purpose. No fluff.

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 complexity (multiple scanners, user interaction), the description covers scope, triggers, and post-audit behavior. An output schema exists (not shown), so return values are likely documented separately. However, it omits details like account scope (all accounts?) and expected execution time. Fairly 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the two parameters (top_n, regions). While top_n might be inferred as number of top opportunities, regions is left unclear. The description should add value by defining these parameters, especially since the schema provides no descriptions.

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 runs a full cost optimization audit across all connected AWS resources. It lists specific triggers and distinguishes from siblings like get_cost_summary and get_costs_by_service by explicitly stating when to use this tool vs simpler alternatives.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use criteria ('explicitly asks for full audit'), what not to use it for (point-in-time queries, single-service), good and bad trigger examples, and post-action instructions (ask user which opportunity, offer CSV export). This is comprehensive guidance.

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