cloud-audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clarifies the tool returns a summary and estimates risk, but lacks critical operational context such as whether the scan is read-only, expected execution duration, or rate limiting concerns.

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 well-structured with a clear summary sentence followed by detailed capabilities and a dedicated Args section. There is minimal redundancy between the first two sentences, and the Args section efficiently presents necessary parameter documentation.

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 existence of an output schema, the description appropriately omits return value details while successfully documenting all parameters. It is missing only operational context (safety profile, execution time) expected for a security scanning tool with no annotations.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the Args section comprehensively documents all three parameters including semantic meaning (e.g., 'AWS CLI profile name'), format constraints ('Comma-separated'), and enumerated values ('critical, high, medium, low'), fully compensating for the schema deficiency.

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 performs an AWS security scan, detecting misconfigurations, attack chains, and breach cost risks. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this comprehensive scan from sibling getter tools like get_findings or get_attack_chains.

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 explains what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus the specific retrieval siblings (get_findings, get_attack_chains), nor does it mention prerequisites like AWS credential configuration.

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