AWS Customer Playbook Advisor 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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves guidance from official playbooks, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., guidance format, structure, or examples), nor does it address behavioral traits like authentication or error handling. For a tool with no structured metadata, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the input schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters ('service' and optional 'question'). Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract from the schema's documentation.

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: '取得します' (retrieves) '予防的セキュリティガイダンス' (preventive security guidance) from '公式プレイブック' (official playbooks) for AWS services. It specifies the resource (AWS preventive security guidance) and source (official playbooks), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_aws_playbook' or 'list_available_playbooks' beyond mentioning 'preventive' guidance.

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 its siblings ('get_aws_playbook', 'list_available_playbooks'). It doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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