GetStackResources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return type ('Dict containing stack resources') but says nothing about read-only safety, pagination/result limits, permissions needed, or behavior when the stack name does not exist — notable gaps for a listing tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loaded and readable, but the first two sentences restate the same idea (retrieves resources / lists resources), and the Args and Returns blocks largely duplicate the input schema and add little. Some trimming would help.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter, and a use case. It leaves out pagination/scale behavior and error handling, so it is adequate but not fully 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 100% with a single required parameter, so the schema already documents stack_name fully. The description's Args section merely restates the same meaning, adding no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb ('Retrieves'/'lists') and resource ('resources that have been created by an individual stack' / 'all resources within a specific CloudFormation stack'), which cleanly contrasts with sibling ListCloudFormationStacks (which lists stacks, not their contents). However, it does not explicitly name or route away from any sibling, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

It gives one concrete use case ('useful for identifying potential targets for fault injection experiments'), which implies when to reach for this tool. But it names no alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions, so the when-to-use guidance remains partial.

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