Latest WAF Report

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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only and non-destructive. The description adds 'latest' and 'normalized' as behavioral hints, but does not disclose further behavior such as how the latest report is selected, pagination, or response shaping. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant detail. Every part of it contributes to identifying the tool's purpose.

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 that the input schema documents every parameter and an output schema exists, the one-sentence description is mostly sufficient for invoking the tool correctly. The main missing element is contextual guidance for choosing this tool among the many report-related siblings, but that gap is primarily covered by the usage-guidelines dimension.

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%, so all seven parameters are already documented. The description adds little beyond implying project context; it does not provide additional semantics for parameters like view, severity, or reportId.

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 a clear verb ('Fetch') and a specific resource: the latest normalized Well-Architected report for a project. It is not tautological, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling report tools such as reports_show or reports_rules; differentiation is only implicit through 'Well-Architected report.'

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?

There is no guidance on when to use reports_waf versus the many sibling report tools or how to choose between report types. No when/when-not conditions, alternatives, or exclusions are mentioned.

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