scan_lambda_concurrency_waste

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It states the tool scans and returns results, implying no destructive actions, but does not discuss permissions, rate limits, or any side effects. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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, consisting of three sentences plus an Args line and examples. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, the selection criteria (50% utilization), output (savings estimates), and parameter details. Examples further clarify intent. It is complete for a simple scanning 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?

The single parameter 'regions' is described with a clear default ('all common regions') and usage examples. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates well by adding meaningful 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?

The description clearly states the tool scans Lambda functions with provisioned concurrency for waste, specifying the 50% utilization threshold and savings estimates. This distinguishes it from sibling waste auditing tools like scan_cloudwatch_waste or scan_waste_patterns.

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 use cases, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other scanning tools or when not to use it. It does not mention prerequisites or alternatives.

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