ssm_describe_parameters

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.