get_agent_blast

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden, and it does so well: it discloses 'no AWS calls,' 'computed from the saved scan,' the Markdown output format, the two threat models, and the scoping rule by last scan or agent substring. Minor gaps remain around what happens if no saved scan exists or whether the agent parameter filters or overrides, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 front-loaded with a useful framing question and then a dense, content-rich sentence. Every clause adds diagnostic value: scope, threat models, reach categories, tags, and the no-AWS-calls guarantee. It is slightly long but not padded, and the structure helps an agent parse the tool's purpose 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 tool has an output schema, return-value details are already covered. The description provides the essential context: source of data, scoping, threat models, output format, and the fact that no AWS calls are made. The only meaningful omission is explicit prerequisite/error behavior when no saved scan exists, but this is adequately implied by 'last scan.'

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 0%, so the description must document the single 'agent' parameter. It does: 'matching ``agent`` by name, id or ARN substring' explains how the value is interpreted, and the overall phrasing implies the default unfiltered case covers all agents found by the last scan. It does not explicitly state empty-string behavior, but it mostly compensates for the schema gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it 'returns a Markdown report' of what a hijacked Bedrock Agent can reach, under two named threat models. It clearly separates itself from scan_aws by stating 'no AWS calls' and from sibling get_* tools by focusing specifically on agent blast radius. An agent can tell exactly what this tool computes.

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 implies when to use it: after a scan exists, when you want agent-centred reach analysis, because it is 'computed from the saved scan' and makes 'no AWS calls.' However, it never names alternatives such as get_attack_chains, get_findings, or get_remediation, nor does it state when not to choose this tool. Context is clear, but exclusions and alternatives are missing.

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