EBS CloudWatch Metrics MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns information like size, status, etc., but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only (implied by '조회합니다' - retrieve), potential errors, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the snapshot doesn't exist. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no 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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by details on return values and parameters. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more integrated into the flow rather than in a separate 'Args' section.

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 has an output schema (which should cover return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage (0%), the description is moderately complete. It explains the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., error handling, side effects) and usage guidelines, making it adequate but with clear gaps for a read operation 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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema. It explains that 'snapshot_id' is an EBS snapshot ID with an example format ('snap-1234567890abcdef0') and clarifies that 'region' is optional and refers to an AWS region. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well, though it doesn't detail all possible return fields beyond the listed examples.

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's purpose: 'EBS 스냅샷의 크기를 조회합니다' (retrieves the size of an EBS snapshot). It specifies the resource (EBS snapshot) and action (retrieve size), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_volume_snapshots' or 'get_ebs_metric'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_volume_snapshots' (which might list snapshots) or 'get_ebs_metric' (which might retrieve other metrics), leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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