scan_cloudwatch_waste

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the tool as scanning (read-only) across regions, returning estimates and recommendations. It does not mention destructive actions or limitations, but the behavior is clearly a read operation.

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 with two paragraphs and a helpful examples list. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clear.

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, the description adequately describes the return value: groups, cost, recommendations, and CLI commands. It covers the tool's purpose, parameter, and examples, making it complete for an agent.

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 only parameter 'regions' has no schema description, but the tool description explains it defaults to all opted-in regions. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and default.

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 finds CloudWatch Log Groups with no retention policy, identifies the cost implication, and lists the returned data (groups, cost, recommendations, CLI commands). It is specific and distinct 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?

The description provides context and examples for when to use the tool (e.g., 'Which CloudWatch log groups have no retention policy?'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to sibling tools like audit_cloudwatch_logs_ia_opportunities.

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