eventbridge_create_bus

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.