Get rightsizing recommendations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the 14-day time window and threshold defaults, but does not disclose other behaviors like filtering scope or data freshness. This is adequate given the 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 concise with a clear first sentence stating the main purpose, followed by structured param definitions and helpful examples. No redundant information.

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?

The description covers the core function and parameters but does not specify the return format (e.g., per-instance recommendations, fields included). Given no output schema, a bit more detail on return values would improve completeness, but the description is still fairly comprehensive.

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%, so the description fully explains both parameters (avg_cpu_threshold and max_cpu_threshold) with plain language and default values. This adds significant value beyond the 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's purpose: analyzing EC2 instances with low CPU utilization over 14 days and returning rightsizing recommendations with projected monthly savings. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_idle_resources or open_rightsizing_pr.

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 example queries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_instance_deep_analysis or scan_waste_patterns. Usage context is implied but not formally delineated.

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