cloud-audit

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.

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

No annotations exist, so description bears full burden. It discloses the return contents but does not mention any behavioral traits like temporary exclusivity, authorization requirements, or potential staleness. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loads the core action and then clarifies what attack chains are. Very efficient.

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 zero parameters, presence of output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the return value sufficiently. Minor gaps: no mention of ordering, limit, or whether chains from multiple scans are aggregated, but 'from the last scan' provides temporal context.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and description adds no extra param info, which is acceptable.

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?

Clearly states it gets all detected attack chains from the last scan, defines attack chains as correlated findings forming exploitable paths, and distinguishes from siblings like get_findings by specifying the unique content (narrative, priority fix, breach cost estimate).

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?

Implies usage after a scan but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings like get_findings or scan_aws. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes output fields but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether results are cached, what happens if no scans exist, or read-only nature. Mutation or destructive potential is not addressed.

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 includes a docstring-style Args section which is clear but slightly verbose. It could be more concise by integrating parameter info into a single sentence. Still, it is structured and readable.

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 there is an output schema, the description need not explain return format entirely, but it does list output fields. It lacks details on pagination, error handling, or behavior when filters are omitted. Overall, it is mostly complete for a simple retrieval tool.

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%, but the description explains each parameter: severity filter, service filter, and limit with default. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 retrieves findings from the last scan with optional filters, and lists specific data fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_health_score or list_checks.

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 usage by stating optional filters but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_attack_chains or get_remediation. Sibling tools are listed but not compared.

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, the description acknowledges it is a read operation returning data, but does not disclose potential side effects or requirements (e.g., authentication, data freshness). It is acceptable for a simple read-only tool but lacks depth.

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?

Two sentences, no redundant information. Front-loaded with the action, then specifies outputs. Highly efficient.

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 parameters and presence of output schema, the description covers basic purpose and returns. However, it misses context like whether the health score is real-time or cached, or if prior scanning (via 'scan_aws') is necessary. Adequate but incomplete.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description cannot add param info. It does add value by explaining the return structure, which is helpful given an output schema exists, earning a baseline of 4.

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 retrieves the current health score and risk exposure summary, listing specific outputs (score, finding counts, attack chain count, estimated risk). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual components.

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 siblings like 'get_findings' or 'get_attack_chains'. It does not mention prerequisites, such as whether a scan is required first, or exclusions.

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, the description details the output format (copy-paste ready CLI and HCL). It does not disclose error handling, authentication needs, or behavior on invalid IDs, but it is adequate for a straightforward read operation.

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 concise, front-loads the purpose, and provides examples without superfluous information. Every sentence adds value.

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 output schema exists (not shown), the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns. It covers the essential context for a simple retrieval tool, though it could mention the output format types.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds concrete examples for check_id (e.g., 'aws-iam-001'), clarifying the expected format beyond the schema's type definition alone.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: retrieving remediation details (CLI command + Terraform code) for a specific check. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_checks and get_findings by focusing on remediation actions.

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 indicates the tool is used for a specific check ID, providing examples. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, the context is clear for a simple retrieval tool.

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 clearly states that no AWS credentials are needed (auth requirement) and that the return includes check IDs, categories, and services. This is fairly transparent for a read-only list operation.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The key information is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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 zero parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not detailed here but exists), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, auth requirements, and return content. Could potentially mention that the response is not paginated or that results are static, but these are minor omissions.

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 zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the description need not add parameter information. Baseline 3 applies, and the description does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema shows.

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 lists all available security checks, specifies no AWS credentials are needed, and indicates the return content (check IDs, categories, services). It distinguishes from sibling tools like scan_aws or get_findings by being a simple listing operation.

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 usage for browsing available checks but does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it compare with sibling tools.

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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the scan scope (misconfigurations, attack chains, breach cost) but omits potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state it.

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?

Description is front-loaded with purpose and includes an Args section. It is relatively concise, though the Args list could be integrated into a single paragraph to reduce 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?

Given the output schema exists (not shown) and 0 required parameters, the description covers the main purpose well. However, it lacks details on the summary content and how it relates to sibling tools, slightly reducing completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds full meaning: profile as AWS CLI profile, regions as comma-separated, min_severity with value list. This compensates completely for the lack of schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states 'Run an AWS security scan and return a summary', specifying it scans for misconfigurations, attack chains, and breach cost. This differentiates from siblings like get_findings or get_attack_chains which are more granular.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings. The description implies it's for a broad scan, but does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like get_findings for specific details.

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