scan_graviton_migration_opportunities

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the scanning action, return format (ranked candidates with savings), and parameter default, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or limitations such as supported instance families.

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: a single sentence for purpose, then args, then examples. It is front-loaded with the main action and has 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?

For a simple scan tool with one parameter, the description covers the main functionality, return value (ranked candidates with savings), and provides examples. It does not mention prerequisites or output schema details, but those are covered by the output schema itself.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates fully by explaining the 'regions' parameter (AWS regions to scan) and its default value, adding clear meaning 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'finds' and the resource 'EC2 instances that can migrate to Graviton (arm64)', and distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_cloudwatch_waste by specifying the migration focus and savings percentage.

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 finding Graviton migration opportunities but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like scan_waste_patterns. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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