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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'returns' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific data is included in the return. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 Korean that directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and has no wasted words, 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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on return format, error handling, or behavioral context. For a tool that returns credential information, more completeness would help the agent understand what to expect.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with one optional parameter 'region' clearly documented. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain why region matters for identity queries or default behavior). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'returns account/user/Role information for the AWS credentials currently used by the MCP server.' It specifies the verb ('returns') and resource ('AWS credentials information'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like get_ec2_instances or get_ec2_summary, which appear to be EC2-specific while this is about identity credentials.

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, prerequisites, or specific contexts where this tool is appropriate versus other AWS-related tools. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('조회합니다' - retrieves/views), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover important aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., list format, fields included).

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 Korean that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 complexity of AWS EC2 operations and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return values, error conditions, or behavioral traits like authentication needs. For a tool interacting with cloud resources, more context is needed for safe and effective use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters (region and state). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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: 'EC2 인스턴스 목록을 조회합니다' translates to 'Retrieves a list of EC2 instances.' This is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_ec2_summary, which might provide aggregated or different EC2 data.

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 get_ec2_summary or get_aws_identity, nor does it specify any prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers for usage.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'provides' information but doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it makes API calls that could incur costs, or what format the summary information takes. For an AWS tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 extremely concise - a single Korean sentence that directly states the tool's function. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While it could benefit from being more informative, it's efficiently structured 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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'summary information' includes, doesn't provide context about AWS authentication requirements, and offers no guidance on when to use this versus the sibling 'get_ec2_instances' tool. The agent would struggle to understand what to expect from this tool's output or when to select it.

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 has 100% description coverage with the single 'region' parameter well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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 states the tool provides EC2 instance summary information, which gives a basic purpose. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'summary information' includes and doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_ec2_instances' which likely provides more detailed instance data. The description doesn't specify the verb or scope clearly enough for optimal 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when this summary tool is preferable to the more detailed 'get_ec2_instances' sibling, nor any context about prerequisites or appropriate use cases. The agent receives no help in choosing between available AWS tools.

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