LocalStack MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, clearly separated by service prefix and action. The main ambiguity is between kinesis_put_record and kinesis_put_records (singular vs. batch), but descriptions clarify the difference. Overall, tools are well-differentiated and easy to navigate.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent 'service_verb_noun' pattern in snake_case. Verbs like list, create, delete, get, put, and others are used predictably across services. Even nuanced variations like ssm_get_parameters_by_path maintain the same style, resulting in a highly uniform naming convention.
Tool Count2/5
With 73 tools, this server is extremely large and exceeds the threshold for a well-scoped set. While it covers many AWS services, an agent would face significant selection overhead. The tool count would be more appropriate if split into smaller, service-focused MCP servers.
Completeness4/5
The server covers core CRUD and lifecycle operations for each included AWS service, including S3, SQS, SNS, EventBridge, Kinesis, DynamoDB, Lambda, Secrets Manager, SSM, and SES. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no S3 copy, no SQS visibility timeout update, no Lambda update), but most essential workflows are supported without dead ends.
Average 3.4/5 across 73 of 73 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on March 8, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It merely states 'receive' without explaining key traits like visibility timeout effects, long polling, or that messages are not automatically deleted after retrieval. The description essentially restates the tool name and adds no behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified and essentially restates the tool name. It does not earn its place because it adds minimal informational value, making it more an under-specification than a concise, informative statement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This tool has four parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a minimal description. The description fails to cover critical context such as return format, behavior when the queue is empty, or how visibility timeout affects subsequent operations. An AI agent would lack sufficient information to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, which is sufficient for this dimension.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Receive messages from an SQS queue in LocalStack' clearly identifies the action (receive) and resource (SQS queue), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like sqs_send_message and sqs_delete_message. However, it lacks specificity about the exact behavior (e.g., long polling or message retrieval semantics), so it doesn't fully separate it from all possible related operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternatives such as sqs_send_message, sqs_delete_message, or sqs_purge_queue. No context is given about prerequisites, use cases, or situations where another tool would be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It relies on the word 'Describe' to imply a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state it is a safe, non-mutating action, nor does it mention any prerequisites or error behaviors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, succinct sentence without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it could include more information without being overly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having only one parameter, the description lacks context about what 'describe' returns (e.g., table status, throughput) and does not mention LocalStack-specific behavior. The absence of an output schema makes this minimal description insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the only parameter (tableName) with a clear description, and the tool description adds no extra semantic meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies, and there is no additional value from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Describe') and resource ('a DynamoDB table'), making it easy to understand the tool's core purpose. It distinguishes this from item-level operations like dynamodb_get_item, though it does not explicitly differentiate from dynamodb_list_tables.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dynamodb_list_tables or dynamodb_get_item. There is no mention of typical use cases like checking table status before other operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states the core action and offers no details about return format, pagination behavior, performance costs (full table read), or how the limit parameter influences results. This is a significant omission for a scan operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence with no filler words. It is efficiently structured and easy to parse, though it sacrifices detail for brevity. It earns a high conciseness score because every word contributes to the core message.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must provide the contextual completeness. It fails to mention return values, pagination, or the fact that a scan reads the entire table and may be expensive. Given the medium complexity and the absence of other context, this description is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, neither clarifying the JSON format for expressionAttributeValues nor hinting at the effect of limit. It neither improves nor degrades the information available.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Scan all items') and the resource ('DynamoDB table in LocalStack'), making the primary purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like dynamodb_query, so it stops short of full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 scan versus alternatives such as dynamodb_query. It implies a use case for retrieving all items but does not state any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons, leaving the agent without clear decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, and the description only says 'Delete an SNS topic' without disclosing important behaviors such as cascading deletion of subscriptions, idempotency, or failure modes for non-existent topics. This is a destructive operation, and the description fails to warn about side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that is perfectly concise and front-loaded. There is no redundancy or wasted wording, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter delete, the description is minimally acceptable but lacks critical context such as the effect on associated subscriptions, whether deletion is idempotent, or the expected return value. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more details to fully prepare the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully documents the only parameter (topicArn) with a description 'Topic ARN', so the description adds no additional semantic meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%, and the description does nothing to enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('SNS topic') with a specific scope ('LocalStack'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like sns_unsubscribe, but the resource name is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., sns_unsubscribe for subscriptions or sqs_delete_queue for queues). It does not mention prerequisites or exclusions, so the agent gets no direction beyond the literal action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the action ('list and describe') but does not explicitly state that it's a read-only operation, nor does it disclose pagination behavior, return format, or whether it returns values or just metadata. The maxResults parameter hints at pagination, but the description doesn't confirm it or explain what the output contains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it is arguably under-specified, but for a simple list operation, the brevity is acceptable and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 optional parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but not complete. It does not explain what 'describe' returns (e.g., parameter names, types, values), nor does it distinguish this operation from ssm_get_parameters_by_path, which is also a listing operation. The description is minimally viable but leaves room for stronger contextual guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes the single parameter maxResults with a clear description and default value, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning for parameters, but the schema already handles the semantic load, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb ('List and describe') with a specific resource ('SSM Parameter Store parameters'), making the purpose obvious. It is not as strong as a description that explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like ssm_get_parameter or ssm_get_parameters_by_path, but the term 'describe' aligns with the AWS DescribeParameters operation, which implies listing metadata rather than retrieving a single value.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternatives. It does not mention ssm_get_parameter for looking up a single value or ssm_get_parameters_by_path for path-based queries. The only context is 'in LocalStack', which specifies the environment but not usage scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool 'enables' a rule, implying a state change, but provides no details about side effects, idempotency, permission requirements, or error conditions. This is minimal and lacks context beyond the verb itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is so brief that it omits valuable context, which slightly detracts from its conciseness effectiveness; it is concise but under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the tool is simple (2 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description lacks important context: what happens on success, whether the rule must already exist, how it interacts with disable_rule, and any behavioral notes. With no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter details. However, it adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Enable') and resource ('EventBridge rule') and clearly differentiates from siblings such as disable_rule and put_rule. The 'in LocalStack' context clarifies the environment, though it is redundant with the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., rule must exist) or contrast with eventbridge_disable_rule or eventbridge_put_rule. The intended use is implied by the name and description but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the obvious read operation ('List all...') without mentioning pagination, return format, or the LocalStack-specific behavior beyond what the name implies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It clearly states the action and resource in a compact form.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one optional parameter, the description plus schema are adequate but minimal. It does not mention potential pagination or the fact that the prefix filter is available in the description, though the schema covers it. The lack of behavioral details keeps this at a baseline level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the single parameter with a clear description ('Filter buses by name prefix'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('EventBridge event buses'), making the core action clear. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like eventbridge_list_rules, but the resource type distinguishes it from other list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other listing tools. It does not mention the optional prefix parameter or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only notes 'in LocalStack' and does not disclose read-only behavior, permission requirements, or handling of unverified/nonexistent identities.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and directly states the purpose without redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with one parameter, the description is minimally adequate, but the lack of an output schema and absence of details about the response format (e.g., status values, error cases) leaves some ambiguity for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of the parameter, including a description for 'identities' ('List of email addresses or domain names to check'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'verification status for SES identities', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ses_list_identities (which lists identities) and ses_verify_email_identity (which initiates verification). However, it does not explicitly contrast with these siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what the tool does and gives no context on prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects like whether targets are removed, idempotency, or error behavior when the rule doesn't exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately states the purpose without any filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, leaving the description as the only source of context. It omits key details such as return values, error conditions, and LocalStack-specific behavior, making it incomplete for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete an EventBridge rule from LocalStack' clearly states the action (delete) and the target resource (EventBridge rule). It distinguishes from sibling tools like eventbridge_delete_bus by specifying 'rule'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternatives, such as eventbridge_disable_rule or eventbridge_remove_targets. No prerequisites or consequences of deletion are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as default event bus handling, pagination, or ordering. The description is minimal and provides no additional context beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly communicates the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks any usage context, default behavior, or filtering explanation, which is needed given the absence of annotations and output schema. The completeness is insufficient for effective tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action (list) on a specific resource (EventBridge rules) with a scope qualifier (LocalStack). It distinguishes from sibling tools like eventbridge_list_buses and eventbridge_describe_rule by focusing on listing rules.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of filtering options (prefix, eventBusName) or distinctions from other list tools. The description only states the action without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states the action. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether events are validated, any limitations of the LocalStack environment, or partial failure behavior. This leaves the agent without crucial operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words. It earns its place with no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the schema is rich, the description is very thin for a write operation. There is no output schema, and the tool's behavior in LocalStack is not explained. The agent cannot infer what the tool returns or any edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100% for all properties, including 'entries', 'detail', 'source', etc. The description adds no extra parameter details, but the baseline is 3 given the schema already documents everything.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Put' and clearly identifies the resource: 'custom events onto an EventBridge event bus in LocalStack'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'eventbridge_put_rule' and 'eventbridge_put_targets' which target different entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 vs alternatives such as 'sns_publish' or 'kinesis_put_record'. It simply states the action without exclusions or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action 'Delete' and the target 'LocalStack', but does not mention that the deletion is permanent, irreversible, or what happens if the stream does not exist. The 'LocalStack' context is a minor addition but insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the essential action and target efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is notably sparse. It fails to describe error behavior, return value, or destructiveness. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap, similar to the 'update_drive' example.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'name' parameter with a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Delete' with the resource 'Kinesis stream', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like kinesis_create_stream, kinesis_describe_stream, and kinesis_list_streams.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage is implied solely by the verb 'Delete', but there is no mention of when not to use it or what conditions must be met.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool operates 'in LocalStack', which is useful environment context, but it does not describe what happens if the stream doesn't exist, what information is returned, or any side effects. Since this is a describe operation, safety is implied, but no explicit behavioral traits are disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that is easy to parse and front-loads the action. It is appropriately concise for a simple read operation, though it could arguably be expanded with more detail without becoming wasteful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter description tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the minimum viable context: it identifies the resource and environment. However, it does not indicate what a typical response contains (e.g., stream status, shard count) or any edge-cases, leaving gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with the parameter 'name' described as 'Stream name'. The description does not add further semantic meaning beyond the schema's own documentation, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Describe' with a clear resource 'a Kinesis stream', and adds the 'LocalStack' context. It distinguishes from sibling tools like kinesis_list_streams (list) and kinesis_get_records (get data) by clearly indicating a description operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, e.g., needing to list streams first, or situations where get_records would be more appropriate. The usage context is only implied by the verb, so the agent receives no direct behavioral instruction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get records' but does not elaborate on read-only nature, shard iterator behavior, or response format, which are important for an agent to correctly infer side effects and expectations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and immediately conveys the core action and target, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description should explain return values, but it does not. It is also minimal for a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, lacking details on usage context, error conditions, or the LocalStack-specific behavior beyond the name.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to explain parameters. The baseline of 3 applies since no additional meaning is added beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' with resource 'records' and scope 'Kinesis stream shard', clearly distinguishing it from sibling Kinesis operations like put_record or describe_stream. It precisely states what the tool does without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., describe_stream, put_record). The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or context that would help an agent choose this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 merely says 'Delete' without explaining the recovery window behavior, the permanent nature of forceDelete, or any side effects. The schema's forceDelete description hints at the recovery window, but the description itself offers no transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what the tool does with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a significant behavioral nuance (recovery window vs forceDelete) that is not mentioned in the description, nor is the relationship with restore_secret. For a destructive operation with no output schema, the description is incomplete and fails to provide essential context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters are fully documented in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already covers meaning, earning a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a secret from Secrets Manager in LocalStack'), fully distinguishing it from sibling tools like restore, create, update, and describe.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. For example, it does not mention that forceDelete bypasses the recovery window or that restore_secret can be used within the recovery period.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Verify' without disclosing that this operation initiates an asynchronous verification (e.g., sends a verification email) and that verification status must be checked separately. No behavioral traits like side effects or required permissions are mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the expected behavior and outcome. It fails to mention that verification is asynchronous, that a verification email is sent, or that the user must use ses_get_identity_verification_attributes to check status. This is a significant completeness gap for an action-oriented tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'email' described as 'Email address to verify'. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which already fully documents the parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic weight.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Verify'), the resource ('email address identity in SES'), and the context ('in LocalStack'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ses_list_identities and ses_delete_identity by focusing on verification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 the SES siblings, such as ses_get_identity_verification_attributes or ses_send_email. It does not mention prerequisites, follow-up steps, or alternative tools for checking verification status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing key details such as idempotent behavior (existing topics return the same ARN), the FIFO naming convention, or what success returns (TopicArn). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no superfluous words. It is appropriately sized for a simple create operation, though it sacrifices depth for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is incomplete for the tool's context. It lacks information about return values (e.g., TopicArn), idempotency, and any special naming requirements beyond what the schema already provides. For a creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters described ('Topic name' and 'Create as a FIFO topic...'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but the schema already provides adequate semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb 'Create' with a specific resource 'SNS topic' and scope 'in LocalStack'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sns_delete_topic, sns_list_topics, and sns_publish.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no mentions of the relationship to SNS subscriptions, publishing, or deletion, and no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It states the action ('Subscribe') but does not mention side effects, confirmation requirements, return values, or any special handling for different protocols. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded, delivering the essential purpose immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal and does not cover return values, prerequisites, or behavioral nuances like subscription confirmation. Since there is no output schema, the agent gets no information about what to expect after invocation. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having its own description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Subscribe') and clearly identifies the resource ('an endpoint to an SNS topic'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sns_unsubscribe or sns_publish. The mention of 'LocalStack' adds context but not ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., that the topic must exist, or that subscription confirmation may be needed for certain protocols). The description is purely action-oriented.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Create or update' without disclosing behavior such as the default overwrite=true, whether it is idempotent, or any permission/side-effect implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence that conveys the core function. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
As a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain the overwrite semantics or the LocalStack-specific behavior, leaving the agent without enough context for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of parameters (name, type, value, overwrite, description), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Create or update') and names the resource ('SSM Parameter Store parameter'), and mentions LocalStack as the environment. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like ssm_get_parameter and ssm_delete_parameter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus ssm_get_parameter, ssm_delete_parameter, or other parameter tools. It simply states the action without any context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses 'create or replace', which is a key behavioral trait, but it omits other important details such as permissions required, whether the table must exist, return values, or that the entire item is replaced. The stated behavior is minimal and largely implied by the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that is concise and to the point. Every word earns its place, providing the essential information without unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (two params, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It clarifies the create-or-replace behavior and the 'LocalStack' context, but it lacks usage guidance and details about item structure or error conditions. It is complete enough for a straightforward put operation but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% since both 'tableName' and 'item' have descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already handles semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Put' and explicitly states 'create or replace', clearly identifying the operation and resource (an item in a DynamoDB table). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dynamodb_get_item, dynamodb_delete_item, and dynamodb_query.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_item or batch writes). The description does not mention when to choose put_item over other DynamoDB operations, leaving the usage context entirely to the agent's inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'in LocalStack' which gives some context about the environment, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether this overwrites an existing bus), idempotency, or error conditions. For a create operation, the absence of any follow-up details leaves significant ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action. Every word is useful: 'Create', 'new', 'EventBridge event bus', and 'LocalStack'. There is no fluff or redundant information, making it highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple create tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what it does but doesn't provide context about the resulting resource or when a bus might be needed, especially given the large set of sibling EventBridge tools. A brief note on typical use or subsequent steps (e.g., 'then add rules with put_rule') would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already covers 100% of the parameters with a description for 'name' ('Event bus name'), so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. It doesn't explain naming constraints or format beyond the schema's minLength, but the schema covers the essential semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new EventBridge event bus'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like eventbridge_delete_bus and eventbridge_list_buses by focusing on the create operation. Even without a title, the description is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or alternatives. It only states the action without context such as 'needed before configuring rules' or 'use instead of sns_create_topic for custom event buses'. There is no explicit exclusion or comparison with other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, yet the description only states the essential action. It does not disclose behavior such as success/failure responses, whether the rule must exist, or the return payload, leaving the agent without important context for a 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that wastes no words. It is appropriately sized for the simple action it describes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with fully documented parameters, but the description lacks usage guidance and return-value details. Since no output schema or annotations exist, the description alone is slightly incomplete for an agent to fully understand edge cases and expected output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema documents both parameters (name and eventBusName) with descriptions, covering 100% of the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Describe an EventBridge rule in LocalStack' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing the tool from siblings like list_rules, put_rule, and delete_rule. The 'describe' verb unambiguously indicates retrieval of details for a single rule.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternatives such as eventbridge_list_rules. It does not mention any exclusions or context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool's name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action but omits key implications: whether the rule must exist, whether disabling is reversible, the effect on targets, and behavior if the rule is already disabled. For a mutation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and environment. There is no redundant or extraneous content, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with two parameters and a fully documented schema, but the description lacks important contextual details such as prerequisites (e.g., rule must exist), post-condition state (rule remains but inactive), and relationship to enable_rule. Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally complete but not fully informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the input schema clearly documenting both parameters (name and eventBusName). The description adds no parameter-specific details, but since the schema already covers them fully, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Disable') and resource ('EventBridge rule'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like eventbridge_enable_rule and eventbridge_delete_rule. The addition of 'in LocalStack' also clarifies the execution environment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternatives such as eventbridge_enable_rule or eventbridge_delete_rule. There is no context about the operational workflow, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool can create or update (implying mutation), but it does not explain important behaviors such as whether updating an existing rule replaces the entire rule, how missing optional fields are handled, or if there are any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool without annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the essential action and scope. It is concise and without filler. However, it is so brief that it omits valuable context, so it doesn't earn a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutating tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain the rule lifecycle (e.g., that targets are added separately), what happens on update, or any constraints. The schema covers parameters, but the description fails to provide the operational context an agent needs to use this tool effectively alongside its siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter with meaningful descriptions. The description text adds no parameter-specific information beyond 'create or update'. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the load; there is no additional value from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'Create or update an EventBridge rule'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like eventbridge_put_targets (which adds targets to a rule) and eventbridge_enable_rule/disable_rule. The 'in LocalStack' scoping adds context. No ambiguity about what this tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: it's for creating or updating rules, and there is no other rule creation/update tool among siblings. However, it does not explicitly explain when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an event bus or that targets must be added separately with put_targets. No exclusion criteria are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states 'Remove targets' but doesn't clarify whether removal is permanent, what happens if the rule doesn't exist, or whether the rule itself is unaffected. For a mutating operation, this lack of detail is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, straightforward sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple operation and full schema coverage, the description is minimally viable but lacks context about defaults (e.g., eventBusName) and result behavior. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, more might be expected, but the core action is clearly stated, so it's adequate with gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. It doesn't, and the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove targets') and the resource ('EventBridge rule'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like eventbridge_put_targets and eventbridge_delete_rule. It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., the rule must exist), and no mention of the default event bus. The description merely states what it does without contextual use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 does not mention pagination behavior, the default maxKeys (100) already exposed in the schema, or any LocalStack-specific quirks. It only states the operation without clarifying return format or potential truncation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence: 'List objects in an S3 bucket in LocalStack'. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no filler, and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation, the description is adequate but incomplete. The schema covers parameter defaults and constraints, but the description does not mention return value structure or pagination limits. Without an output schema, users might not know the response format, though the operation type makes it somewhat predictable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter (bucket, prefix, maxKeys) having a clear description. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable per the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is specific: 'List objects in an S3 bucket in LocalStack' clearly states the action (list) and resource (objects in an S3 bucket). It distinguishes from sibling tools like s3_list_buckets (lists buckets) and s3_get_object (retrieves a single object), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternatives. It does not mention that s3_list_buckets lists buckets or that s3_get_object fetches a single object, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions. The user is left to infer usage from the tool name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Retrieve the value' without mentioning return format, error behavior, permissions, or LocalStack-specific quirks. The agent gets minimal insight beyond the obvious 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the tool is relatively simple with one parameter, the absence of an output schema and annotations means the description should clarify what 'value' returns (e.g., secret string, binary) and any error conditions. It is minimally adequate but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'secretId' with description 'Secret name or ARN'. The description adds no further meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and clearly identifies the resource ('value of a secret from Secrets Manager'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like describe_secret (metadata) and list_secrets (listing) by focusing on retrieving the value.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include describe_secret and list_secrets, but the description does not explain the difference or mention appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, prerequisites (e.g., secret must exist), or outcomes like version creation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with complete schema param descriptions, but the description lacks operational context such as prerequisites, side effects, and error conditions. It is minimally complete for a straightforward update operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with both parameters documented (secretId, secretString). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update'), the resource ('secret in Secrets Manager'), and scope ('existing'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like create_secret, delete_secret, and get_secret.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or specific use cases beyond the basic function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'via SES in LocalStack' but does not explain important behaviors like the need for a verified 'from' address, asynchronous sending, or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that immediately conveys the action and subject. There is no fluff or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity and the rich input schema, the description is minimal but adequate for basic invocation. However, the lack of an output schema and absence of behavioral notes leaves some gaps (e.g., return value, verification requirements).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter having its own description. The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('email via SES'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ses_list_identities or sns_publish by focusing on sending an email through SES.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sns_publish or sqs_send_message. There is no mention of prerequisites like verified sender identities or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states the action of unsubscribing but does not mention side effects (e.g., the subscription is permanently removed), idempotency behavior, or whether it fails if the subscription does not exist. This lack of extra behavioral context is a gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is well-structured and appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description minimally satisfies the need to explain what the tool does. However, it lacks any mention of how to obtain the subscription ARN or what happens after unsubscription, which would be useful for completeness given the lack of annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'subscriptionArn' with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema offers, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Unsubscribe') and resource ('an endpoint from an SNS topic'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like sns_subscribe or sns_delete_topic. The inclusion of 'LocalStack' also provides context about the environment, making the tool's function unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an existing subscription ARN (e.g., from sns_list_subscriptions_by_topic). The description merely states the action without any contextual usage cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the delete action without disclosing that deletion is permanent, produces no output, or fails for non-existent queues. This lacks behavioral context beyond the obvious mutation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, zero wasted words. It follows a clear 'action + object + context' structure and is easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter delete operation, the description is minimally sufficient, but lacks any note about permanence or consequences. With no annotations and no output schema, a brief statement about irreversible deletion would make it more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter queueName is fully documented in the schema with description 'Queue name' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete'), the resource ('SQS queue'), and the scope ('from LocalStack'), making it distinct from sibling tools like sqs_purge_queue or sqs_delete_message. This is a specific verb+resource construction with no ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sqs_purge_queue or sqs_delete_message, nor does it state prerequisites such as the queue needing to be empty or the operation being irreversible.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states the destructive action 'Delete' without detailing error behavior (e.g., if the parameter does not exist), permanence, or permission requirements—all relevant for an AI agent invoking this tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that concisely communicates the action, resource, and context without any unnecessary words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter deletion tool, the description is functionally adequate but lacks details about return values or error semantics, especially since no output schema exists. It does not mention whether deleting a nonexistent parameter raises an error or if the operation is idempotent, which would be valuable for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with the 'name' parameter described as 'Parameter name'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Delete), the resource (SSM Parameter Store parameter), and the context (in LocalStack). It uses a specific verb and resource, and the singular 'parameter' distinguishes it from the sibling ssm_delete_parameters which implies bulk deletion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternatives such as ssm_delete_parameters for bulk deletion or ssm_put_parameter for creating/updating. It does not mention any preconditions or scenario-based recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 offers no information about return values, decryption behavior, or error handling, and merely states the operation without any additional context beyond what is obvious from the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with a fully documented schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks explicit mention of return value or decryption behavior, and with no output schema or annotations, a bit more detail would enhance completeness for an agent unfamiliar with AWS SSM.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (name and withDecryption) with 100% coverage. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'Get' with a specific resource ('SSM Parameter Store parameter') and specifies retrieval 'by name', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ssm_get_parameters_by_path and ssm_describe_parameters. It also notes the LocalStack context, setting it apart from generic AWS operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ssm_get_parameters_by_path or ssm_describe_parameters. The description only states the action itself, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool's name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the fact of creation. It does not disclose anticipated side effects (e.g., whether the operation is synchronous), error conditions (e.g., table name conflicts), or any special LocalStack behaviors. This is a minimal description that adds no behavioral insight beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence clearly and efficiently conveys the action and target resource with no fluff or redundant details. It is appropriately sized for a simple create operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain what the API returns, how table activation works, or any prerequisites, leaving gaps that could confuse an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All 6 parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), with types, enums, and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter elaboration, so the baseline of 3 applies; it does not enhance understanding of the parameters beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Create' with a clear resource 'a new DynamoDB table' and the context 'in LocalStack', which distinguishes it from sibling operations like dynamodb_delete_table or dynamodb_describe_table. It clearly states the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for creating a DynamoDB table but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when updating an existing table or using another service). It lacks conditions, exclusions, or cross-references to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions 'from LocalStack' but does not disclose that deleting a table is irreversible, removes all items and indexes, or that the table must exist. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that effectively communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. While it could include more detail, it is not bloated or vague, and the structure is appropriate for this simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation with no output schema, the description might seem adequate, but it omits important context such as side effects (deleting all data) and prerequisites (table existence). Given the simplicity, it is marginally complete but lacks the depth expected for a destructive action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the only parameter 'tableName' described as 'Table name'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but for a single, well-named parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a DynamoDB table from LocalStack' clearly identifies the verb ('Delete'), the resource ('DynamoDB table'), and the environment ('LocalStack'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like dynamodb_delete_item, which deletes an item, not a table.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the name and description: use when you need to delete a DynamoDB table. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., dynamodb_delete_item) or when not to use it. The context is clear but no exclusions or alternatives are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions the LocalStack context but fails to explain return format, error behavior, or permission requirements, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single focused sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what the item looks like when returned and any error cases. It only states the basic operation, leaving the agent uncertain about the response structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and both parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('item from a DynamoDB table'), and scope ('by its key'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like dynamodb_scan and dynamodb_query.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for single-item retrieval by key but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like query or scan, nor does it provide exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action and LocalStack context, but does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or the safe read-only nature. This is a significant gap for a query tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently conveys purpose and context without wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain return behavior or pagination, but it does not. The tool is relatively simple, but the description is too sparse to be fully complete for an agent, especially regarding what the query returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema, only mentioning 'key condition' which maps to keyConditionExpression, but the schema already explains that.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('DynamoDB table'), and includes 'by key condition' which distinguishes it from siblings like dynamodb_scan and dynamodb_get_item. It clearly communicates the core operation and scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'by key condition' implies this tool is for key-condition queries, offering some usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from the name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add or update' without explaining mutation behavior, potential overwriting semantics, permission requirements, or error conditions. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the key verb and resource. Every word adds value and there is no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. It lacks context about prerequisites (rule must exist), behavior on duplicate targets, or any LocalStack-specific considerations. The schema covers parameters but not usage context, leaving the description incomplete for effective invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines each parameter clearly. The description does not add additional meaning beyond mentioning 'targets' and 'EventBridge rule', providing only a baseline benefit over the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Add or update' and the resource 'targets for an EventBridge rule', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like eventbridge_remove_targets, eventbridge_list_targets, and eventbridge_put_rule. The scope 'in LocalStack' provides context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for adding/updating targets on an existing rule but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or any prerequisites. There is no mention of needing to create the rule first or that eventbridge_put_rule should be used for rule creation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create a Lambda function' without disclosing side effects, whether it overwrites an existing function, permission requirements, error behavior, or the response format. For a write operation, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It states the action, target, environment, and input format efficiently, earning its place without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite a low description length, the tool is complex (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema). The description gives no information about expected return values, how to obtain or encode the ZIP, or any constraints. The schema is rich, but the description alone is insufficient for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptive text, so the description does not need to explain them. The description adds the LocalStack context, but this is already partially captured in the roleArn parameter description. No meaningful additional semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('Lambda function'), and adds the context 'in LocalStack from a base64-encoded ZIP', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling lambda tools like list, get, delete, and invoke. It is immediately obvious what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is the tool for creating Lambda functions but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or prerequisites, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only adds 'from LocalStack' as context but does not disclose whether the bucket must be empty, whether deletion is permanent, or any failure conditions. The verb 'Delete' implies destructiveness, but important behavioral details are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, containing no filler or redundant information. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive delete operation with no annotations or output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks side-effect details (e.g., what happens to contained objects), prerequisites, and error behavior. The 'LocalStack' context helps but does not compensate for the missing behavioral transparency.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'bucket' parameter with its description 'Bucket name'. The tool description does not add any further parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema already documents the parameter well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the target resource ('S3 bucket'), with the scope 'from LocalStack' providing context. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like s3_delete_object (deletes an object) and s3_create_bucket (creates a bucket).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool's use for deleting S3 buckets, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like s3_delete_object, nor does it note prerequisites (e.g., bucket must be empty). The usage is obvious from the name and description, so it earns an 'implied' score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, pagination behavior, or required permissions. The phrase 'in LocalStack' is context but does not reveal behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the essential purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description gives the core action. It does not detail the return format or pagination, but for a straightforward list operation with known API semantics, this is mostly sufficient. However, adding a note about what is returned (e.g., subscription ARNs) would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (the topicArn parameter has a description 'Topic ARN'). The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, but the baseline is 3 because the schema already documents it adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('subscriptions for an SNS topic'), and 'in LocalStack' adds context. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sns_list_topics, which list topics rather than subscriptions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, related operations like sns_subscribe or sns_unsubscribe, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. The description only gives the basic action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states the destructive nature ('Delete') but does not disclose important behaviors such as idempotency, response shape, behavior for non-existent keys, or irreversibility. For a mutation tool, this is a notable transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is low-complexity and the schema fully documents parameters, so the description is adequate for basic selection. However, the lack of output schema and annotations means expected results, error behavior, and edge cases are not covered, leaving some operational uncertainty for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for both tableName and key, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds only the phrase 'by its key,' reinforcing the role of the key parameter but offering no extra format or usage detail. Schema coverage is sufficient, so no compensation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses a specific verb 'Delete' with the precise object 'an item from a DynamoDB table by its key'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like dynamodb_delete_table and dynamodb_get_item, and adds environment context with 'in LocalStack'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'by its key' implies the intended use case of point deletion, providing adequate contextual clarity. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as dynamodb_delete_table or batch deletion tools. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Delete' implies destructive behavior, but the description does not disclose whether associated rules/targets are removed, whether deletion is irreversible, or if any cleanup is performed. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no redundant information. It communicates the action and resource directly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation with one fully documented parameter, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks context about side effects (e.g., deleting associated rules) and any error conditions, which would be valuable given no output schema or annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully documents the 'name' parameter as 'Event bus name', so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantics about name format or constraints, but none are needed given full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Delete' and identifies the resource 'EventBridge event bus', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create/list. The LocalStack context adds specificity. It leaves no ambiguity about the action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as eventbridge_delete_rule or eventbridge_remove_targets. The usage is implied as the inverse of eventbridge_create_bus, but no prerequisites 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the fact of creation and the target environment. It does not mention whether creation is asynchronous, what happens if the stream already exists, or any error semantics, leaving significant uncertainty for the agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that states the purpose without any extraneous information. It is concise, front-loaded, and every word contributes to the meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple with only two parameters and no output schema, but the description lacks details about return values, asynchronous behavior, or potential conflicts with existing streams. This leaves gaps in the agent's understanding of what to expect after invocation, making the description only minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema documents both parameters with descriptions ('Stream name' and 'Number of shards (default: 1)'), and the description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create'), the resource ('Kinesis stream'), and the environment ('LocalStack'), making it distinct from sibling tools like kinesis_describe_stream or kinesis_delete_stream. It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage via the verb 'Create' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention preconditions, alternatives, or when not to use it. It relies on the agent to infer context from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states the action without mentioning irreversibility, permissions required, behavior on non-existent functions, or any associated resource cleanup. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word contributes to the meaning. This is an example of efficient, concise writing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the core purpose adequately. However, it omits important behavioral details such as error handling, idempotency, and side effects, which are particularly relevant for a destructive operation. It is minimally sufficient but leaves clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already fully describes the single parameter 'functionName' as 'Function name or ARN' (100% schema description coverage). The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so it meets the baseline of 3 without adding value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Delete' and the resource 'Lambda function', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like lambda_create_function, lambda_get_function, and lambda_invoke. The phrase 'from LocalStack' adds environmental context, making the tool's scope unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used to delete a Lambda function but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives (e.g., update, disable) or any preconditions. The purpose is self-evident, but there is no mention of when not to use it or related actions, leaving the guidance at an implied level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation but doesn't disclose error behavior, permissions, or the nature of the returned 'details'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no fluff, front-loading the main verb and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple getter, but 'details' is vague without an output schema or additional context about what is returned (e.g., configuration, tags, runtime).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully describes the single parameter 'functionName' with a clear description ('Function name or ARN'), so the tool description adds no additional parameter context. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get details') and the resource ('a Lambda function'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like lambda_list_functions (listing) and lambda_invoke (invoking).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies its use for retrieving details of a specific Lambda function, but doesn't explicitly mention when to prefer it over alternatives or provide exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Create', which implies mutation, but does not disclose possible failure modes (e.g., bucket exists), naming constraints, permissions, or response behavior. This is a significant gap for a create operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with the verb 'Create' front-loaded and the resource 'S3 bucket' specified. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for its length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose but omits important contextual details like bucket name uniqueness, region behavior, or error states. Given no annotations or output schema, it is only moderately complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes the 'bucket' parameter as 'Bucket name' (100% coverage). The tool description adds no extra semantics, such as naming rules or format requirements, so it stays at the schema baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Create a new S3 bucket in LocalStack', using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like s3_list_buckets or s3_delete_bucket, leaving no ambiguity about its function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (creating a bucket) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. It lacks any contextual cues about scenarios where this tool should or shouldn't be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states 'Delete an object,' which implies destruction but does not mention idempotency, permanence, error behavior (e.g., what happens if the key does not exist), or required permissions. This is a mutation tool with minimal transparency, similar to the 'update_drive' example that scored 2.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that directly conveys the action and context. It is appropriately sized, with no wasted words, and fully serves its purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (2 required params, no output schema), and the description covers the action and context. However, it is minimal and does not mention expected behavior on missing objects or the LocalStack environment's specifics. For a delete operation, this is arguably sufficient, but it's a minimum viable description with room to add idempotency or error details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with both 'bucket' and 'key' already described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter detail, so the baseline of 3 applies—the schema adequately documents the parameters, and the description does not need to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Delete an object from an S3 bucket in LocalStack.' It uses a specific verb (delete) and resource (object in S3 bucket), and the LocalStack context distinguishes it from AWS or other cloud environments. This unambiguously differentiates it from sibling tools like s3_put_object or s3_list_objects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the verb 'Delete' and the resource, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., s3_delete_bucket) or any preconditions like bucket existence. The description does not state exclusions or recommend alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough that a user would know this is for removing objects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Upload', but does not disclose whether the operation overwrites existing objects, requires a pre-existing bucket, or involves any authentication or rate limits. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the action itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the action and target. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The schema is well-documented and the tool is a straightforward S3 PUT operation. The description is adequate but lacks behavioral notes such as overwrite behavior or the need for an existing bucket. For a simple upload in LocalStack, it is minimally viable but not fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage for all 4 parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds only a slight hint that the body can be 'text or JSON', but this does not go beyond what the schema already conveys about the body being a string. No additional parameter-level semantics are provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Upload' and identifies the resource as 'a text or JSON object to an S3 bucket', making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes from sibling S3 operations like s3_get_object and s3_delete_object by focusing solely on the write/upload action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool should be used for uploading objects to S3, which is a clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of other S3 operations (e.g., get, delete, list), nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites such as bucket existence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that the tool creates a secret, without mentioning side effects, permissions, what happens if the secret already exists, or return values. This lack of detail is insufficient for a mutating operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence with no redundant words or repetition of the tool name. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple with clear parameter schema, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not cover potential edge cases such as duplicate names or response format, which would be helpful for full comprehension. It is adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 based on the rubric. The description itself does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema already documents, but it does align with the required 'name' parameter by emphasizing the creation of a new secret.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a new secret in Secrets Manager in LocalStack'), clearly stating the tool's purpose. This distinguishes it from sibling secrets manager tools like update, delete, list, get, and restore, which have different actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by specifying 'create a new secret', suggesting it is for new secrets rather than existing ones. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as update_secret or restore_secret, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states 'Describe a secret's metadata' and does not mention read-only semantics, permissions, error behavior, or what the returned metadata includes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that is concise and free of filler. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter, but the absence of an output schema means the description should clarify what 'metadata' includes. It does not, leaving the return value somewhat vague. It minimally satisfies the need for a simple describe operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already fully describes the only parameter (secretId as 'Secret name or ARN') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'describe' and identifies the resource as 'a secret's metadata,' clearly distinguishing it from siblings like secretsmanager_get_secret which retrieves the secret value. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'metadata' implies use when you need secret metadata rather than the secret value, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives. It provides clear context but no exclusions or explicit alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only restates the basic action ('Restore a previously deleted secret') without mentioning side effects, permission requirements, or whether the operation idempotent or reversible. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and object. It contains no unnecessary words or redundant information, earning full marks for efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple signature (one required param) and no output schema, but the description lacks contextual nuances such as behavior for already-restored secrets or permanent deletion, which would be important for an agent to invoke correctly. It is adequate but leaves key details unaddressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter (secretId) with a clear description ('Secret name or ARN'), providing 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Restore') and the resource ('previously deleted secret in Secrets Manager'), making it distinct from sibling tools like secretsmanager_delete_secret or secretsmanager_create_secret. It identifies the specific operation and scope without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case: restoring a previously deleted secret. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_secret) or mention any prerequisites or exclusions (e.g., permanently deleted secrets cannot be restored).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It merely states the action without mentioning permanence, error conditions (e.g., non-existent identity), or idempotency. This is a gap for a mutating operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of six words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With only one parameter and a complete schema, the description is mostly sufficient for a simple delete operation. However, it lacks behavioral context such as what happens on success or failure, which is not covered by annotations or an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'identity' clearly documented as 'Email address or domain name to delete'. The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('SES identity'), with the 'LocalStack' context adding specificity. It distinguishes itself from sibling SES tools (list, verify, get attributes, send email) which serve different operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives, but the operation is unambiguous and there is no competing delete tool among the siblings. Usage is implied for removing a verified SES identity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only the basic action and does not disclose potential side effects, delivery semantics, permission requirements, or what the response contains. For a publish operation, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose without any unnecessary words. It is concise and appropriately structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple and has a complete schema, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not mention return values (e.g., a message ID), prerequisites beyond the ARN, or any LocalStack-specific behavior. It is minimally acceptable but leaves some context gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (message, subject, topicArn) already having a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Publish'), the resource ('a message to an SNS topic'), and the context ('in LocalStack'). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like sns_create_topic or sqs_send_message.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used to send messages to an SNS topic but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., that the topic must already exist). Some guidance is implied by the verb 'publish' and the mention of 'SNS topic', but no exclusions or comparisons are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Delete') and the resource, but does not disclose whether the deletion is irreversible, what happens if some parameters do not exist, or any side effects. The destructive nature is implied by the verb but no further transparency is offered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that delivers the essential action and resource without any redundant words or filler. It is well-structured for a simple delete operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description lacks behavioral context such as whether deletion is permanent or how errors are handled. While the operation is clear, additional context about the effect of the deletion would improve completeness, especially given the absence of annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description already provides full coverage for the single 'names' parameter, including the max of 10 items. The description adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the action (delete), the resource (SSM Parameter Store parameters), and the scope (multiple). It also indicates the context (LocalStack). The word 'multiple' distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'ssm_delete_parameter', making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for deleting multiple parameters, and the sibling 'ssm_delete_parameter' covers single deletion, but it does not explicitly state when to use one over the other. No exclusions or alternatives are named, so the guidance is implied rather than explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and LocalStack adds environmental context, but the description does not mention pagination, response format, or potential side effects. For a simple read-only tool, this is adequate but not richly detailed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential information without any wasted words. It is concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the one-sentence description captures the core purpose. However, it omits details about what a 'target' is, the return shape, or potential pagination, which could be useful. Overall, it is complete enough for a basic operation but leaves room for expansion.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters ('Rule name' and 'Event bus name (default: default)'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List targets') and the resource ('EventBridge rule'), making its purpose specific and unambiguous. It also differentiates from sibling 'eventbridge_list_rules' by targeting 'targets' rather than 'rules'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or suggest other tools for related operations, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states the action and does not mention prerequisites (e.g., stream must exist), failure modes, idempotency, or response details, which are important for a write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple put operation with fully described parameters, the description covers the essentials. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from the batch sibling tool and doesn't mention stream existence requirements, making it minimally adequate but with notable gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with all parameters described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Put', the resource 'a single record onto a Kinesis stream', and the scope 'in LocalStack'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'kinesis_put_records' by specifying 'single record'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'a single record' gives clear context for when to use this tool (for individual records) and implicitly differentiates it from the batch counterpart. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: 'in LocalStack' and 'max 500'. However, it doesn't mention failure behavior, error handling, or whether the operation is idempotent, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core action. Every word contributes value ('multiple', 'LocalStack', 'max 500'), with no unnecessary fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple batch put operation: it identifies the stream, the action, and a key limit. However, the lack of an output schema means the agent gets no information about return values or partial failures, and no mention of stream existence requirements, leaving some contextual gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with simple descriptions for streamName and records. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Put multiple records onto a Kinesis stream' — a specific verb plus resource. It differentiates from the sibling tool 'kinesis_put_record' by emphasizing 'multiple' and the 'max 500' limit, making its batch purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when multiple records need to be written, and the 'max 500' limit conveys an important constraint. However, it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it (e.g., 'for a single record use kinesis_put_record') or mention prerequisites like the stream needing to exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the name's meaning (list all Lambda functions) without describing return format, pagination, or any side effects. While 'list' implies a read-only operation, the description adds no meaningful behavioral context beyond what the name already conveys.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence that immediately states the action and scope. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple zero-parameter list tool: it names the resource and scope. However, it omits details like what the response contains (e.g., function names, metadata) and any pagination behavior. Since there is no output schema, the description could have been more helpful by specifying expected return values, but it remains minimally viable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). According to the rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description need not add parameter syntax details since there are none; the description adequately serves the purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all Lambda functions in LocalStack, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Lambda functions'). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like lambda_get_function and other list tools (sns_list_topics, sqs_list_queues) by naming Lambda specifically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when you need a list of all Lambda functions, but it provides no explicit guidance about when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., lambda_get_function for a single function). For a simple zero-parameter list tool, the implied usage is clear, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the action and destination, but does not mention any side effects, return values, or constraints (e.g., FIFO requirements, message limits, or synchronous behavior). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that delivers the essential information with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easily parsed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple send operation, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the action and target, and the schema covers all parameters. However, it does not mention important context like FIFO queue requirements (though the schema does) or what the tool returns, which could impact an agent's confidence in using it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is the baseline expected.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Send') and resource ('a message to an SQS queue'), and adds the LocalStack context. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sqs_receive_messages, sqs_delete_message, and sns_publish by specifying the SQS queue target and the send action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly indicates when to use this tool: when you want to send a message to an SQS queue. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives (e.g., use sns_publish for topics), but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over the listed siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds some behavioral context by specifying 'as text', which hints at handling of content. But it lacks important details like effects on binary objects, memory usage for large files, or prerequisites. It is not misleading but is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature of the tool, the description covers the essential purpose. With no output schema, it explains that the return is the content as text, which is sufficient for basic use. It lacks edge-case information but is not incomplete for a straightforward read operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (bucket name, object key), achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add further parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Download') and resource ('S3 object'), clearly stating the action and result ('as text'). It differentiates from sibling tools like s3_put_object and s3_delete_object by indicating a read operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied: use when you need to read an S3 object's content. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as s3_list_objects for listing keys. No explicit exclusions or comparisons are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation lists verified identities and that it covers both email and domains, but it does not explain whether the list is filtered by identityType by default, nor does it disclose return formatting or any potential side effects. 'List' implies a read-only operation, which helps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that states the purpose without unnecessary words. Every word contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states what is returned (list of identities). It does not explicitly state the output format, but that is implied. It could mention that identityType is optional, but that's in the schema. Overall, it's sufficient for this simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already fully describes the only parameter (identityType) with a clear description and enum values, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('SES verified identities') and scope ('all email addresses and domains'). It distinguishes from sibling SES tools like ses_get_identity_verification_attributes or ses_verify_email_identity because it's the only one that enumerates all identities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (when you need to enumerate all SES identities), but it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. It does clarify the localization ('in LocalStack'), which gives context but no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 merely states the action but omits important details for a mutating tool, such as whether it is idempotent, what happens if the queue already exists, and whether it returns a queue URL. This is a significant gap for a create operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence: 'Create a new SQS queue in LocalStack'. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, contains no fluff, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (3 parameters, no output schema) and full schema coverage, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It conveys the operation and environment, and the schema fills in parameter specifics. No annotation support, but the tool is simple enough that this concise description works.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (name, fifo, visibilityTimeout). The description adds no parameter information, but per the baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate: the schema already documents the parameters adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new SQS queue in LocalStack' uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('SQS queue'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like sqs_delete_queue or sqs_list_queues. It also adds the 'LocalStack' environment context, reinforcing purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Create a new SQS queue in LocalStack' provides clear context for when the tool should be used (creating a queue in the LocalStack environment). No explicit exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, but the purpose is straightforward and the context is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that deletion is permanent, what happens with invalid receipt handles, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is direct, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has only two parameters and no output schema, the description provides a complete enough picture for a simple delete operation. It would benefit from a note on permanence, but overall it is adequate for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds only 'using its receipt handle', which reinforces the role of the receiptHandle parameter but does not go beyond what the schema already states. The description meets the baseline without adding extra semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Delete), the resource (a message from an SQS queue), and the required method (using its receipt handle). It distinguishes from sibling tools like sqs_delete_queue (deleting a queue) and sqs_purge_queue (clearing all messages).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies that this tool should be used after receiving a message and obtaining its receipt handle. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer the correct usage relative to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool lists queues in LocalStack, but it omits details about return format, whether it is a read-only operation (though implied), or any potential limitations. The minimal nature is sufficient for a straightforward 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without any redundancy. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has low complexity with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the core functionality adequately for a simple list operation. It could optionally state the response format, but the current wording is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides a complete description for the only parameter 'prefix' ('Filter queues by name prefix'), so the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add extra parameter semantics, but none are needed given the schema's clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'SQS queues', distinguishing it from sibling list operations for other services like sns_list_topics or s3_list_buckets. The inclusion of 'all' further defines the scope, making it unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when you need to enumerate SQS queues, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when to use the prefix parameter. Context is clear but lacks exclusions or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the tool name ('List all secrets') without adding details such as whether the operation is read-only, what fields are returned, or whether pagination exists. This lack of behavioral context beyond the name is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence that front-loads the core action ('List all secrets') and adds useful environment context ('in LocalStack'). There is no filler or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple list operation with no parameters and no output schema. The description conveys the basic action, but it omits details about the return value (e.g., whether it returns secret metadata or only names) and does not mention pagination or other caveats. This leaves some ambiguity for the agent, so it is adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, and the description needs no additional parameter information. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description is adequate without introducing any parameter-related confusion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' and resource 'secrets in Secrets Manager', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like secretsmanager_get_secret (which retrieves a specific secret) and secretsmanager_create_secret. It also adds the LocalStack context, making the scope explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: it lists all secrets, and the sibling tool names (get_secret, update_secret, etc.) implicitly indicate alternatives for other operations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or reference an alternative by name, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states the core action (listing) and scope (all streams in LocalStack), which implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose additional traits like pagination, return format, or permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, containing no extraneous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, parameterless list operation, the description adequately conveys the purpose. It could mention the return format (e.g., stream names) but the lack of an output schema makes this a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter information, as none exists, and the schema fully defines the empty parameter set.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all Kinesis streams in LocalStack, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like kinesis_describe_stream and kinesis_create_stream by specifying the list action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used to enumerate Kinesis streams but does not explicitly provide usage context or mention alternatives. For a simple listing tool, the usage is clear from the description, so it rates as implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool invokes a function and returns the response, but lacks details on synchronous behavior, error handling, or what happens with different invocation types. This is minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Invoke a Lambda function') and adds necessary context ('LocalStack', 'return its response').
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a relatively simple tool with 100% schema coverage, the description adequately covers the main purpose. It does not describe return value structure, but no output schema exists, and the invocationType enum covers other invocation modes. Some additional behavioral details could improve it, but it's reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (payload, functionName, invocationType) are already documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Invoke') and resource ('Lambda function'), includes the LocalStack context, and states it returns the response. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, which cover other AWS services.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to invoke a Lambda function and get its response. No explicit exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, but siblings are unrelated services, so this provides adequate guidance for the intended use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' indicates a read-only operation, but the description does not elaborate on potential pagination, permission requirements, or the fact that 'all' might mean up to a limit. It is honest 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with a complete schema, the description and schema together cover the essential usage. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the predictable nature of the operation, though details like pagination or return format could be added.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described (e.g., 'Recursively retrieve nested parameters (default: true)'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get'), resource ('SSM Parameter Store parameters'), and scope ('under a path'). This distinguishes it from sibling ssm_get_parameter, which retrieves a single parameter, and from mutating tools like ssm_put_parameter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly communicates when to use this tool (when you need all parameters under a path) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like ssm_get_parameter. Clear context is present, but exclusions are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'Purge all messages' clearly indicates a destructive, bulk-removal action, and adding 'in LocalStack' provides a contextual constraint. Though it doesn't explicitly state irreversibility, 'purge' strongly implies permanence, and the simplicity of the operation makes this sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous content. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter, no output schema, and a clear action, the description is complete. It states exactly what happens (purge all messages) and the scope (LocalStack). No additional details are needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the only parameter 'queueName' is already described in the schema as 'Queue name'. The description adds no further semantic meaning about the parameter, so it correctly receives the baseline score for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Purge') and resource ('all messages from an SQS queue'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like sqs_delete_queue (deletes the queue itself) and sqs_delete_message (deletes a single message). It also scopes the action to LocalStack.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies the use case: when you want to remove all messages from a queue. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool (e.g., for deleting individual messages, use sqs_delete_message). Thus it provides clear context but no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. 'List all' conveys a read-only enumeration and 'in LocalStack' provides environment context, but the description does not mention pagination, response shape, rate limits, or explicit non-mutating behavior. It is minimally adequate for a simple 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that states the operation, resource, and scope without unnecessary detail. It is fully front-loaded and every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter list tool, the description is nearly complete: it specifies the resource (DynamoDB tables) and environment (LocalStack). However, since there is no output schema, an explicit note about the returned format (e.g., list of table names) would make it fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
This tool has zero parameters and the schema already covers this completely (100% coverage). With nothing to document, the baseline score of 4 applies, and the description does not need to add parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'DynamoDB tables', which immediately distinguishes this tool from sibling tools that target other AWS services. The addition of 'in LocalStack' sets the environment scope, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context that this tool is for enumerating DynamoDB tables, and no sibling tool offers a similar alternative for this exact resource. It lacks explicit when-not or alternative usage guidance, so it does not reach a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It accurately indicates a read-only listing operation, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, or any LocalStack-specific quirks. For such a simple operation, the disclosure is adequate but minimal, so a mid-range score is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded and concise. It contains no filler or redundant information, earning a top score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It clearly states the operation and scope, though it omits the exact return value (e.g., list of topic ARNs), which is a minor gap for a list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is complete (100% coverage). The description does not need to add parameter information since there are none, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all SNS topics in LocalStack' uses a specific verb+resource construction, clearly stating the operation and scope. It is immediately distinct from sibling SNS tools like sns_create_topic and sns_delete_topic, which are write operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The purpose implies when to use it: whenever you need to enumerate SNS topics. There are no alternative listing tools for SNS topics among siblings, so no exclusions are necessary. However, the description does not explicitly state 'use this when you need to view topics' or mention any alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' indicates a read-only operation, and 'LocalStack' provides environment context. However, it does not mention return format, potential permissions, or any edge cases, but for a zero-parameter read-only tool, this is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no unnecessary words. It is perfectly concise for its simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity, no parameters, and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does. The statement 'List all S3 buckets in LocalStack' is complete and unambiguous.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed since the input schema is empty.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'S3 buckets', and the scope 'all'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like s3_list_objects by specifying buckets, and the 'in LocalStack' context clarifies the environment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies use when the agent needs to enumerate all S3 buckets. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools, but the tool name and context make it obvious. There are no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidelines, but for a simple list operation, the clarity is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![localstack-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/giovanemartins/localstack-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/giovanemartins/localstack-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![localstack-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/giovanemartins/localstack-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/giovanemartins/localstack-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/giovanemartins/localstack-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server