analizar_actividad_recursos

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for transparency. It does an excellent job: it details the data sources (free API, CloudTrail Event History), the regional and temporal scope (90-day limit), expected unknowns (data events excluded), the non-execution of paid sources, and the bounded, read-only nature. This sets correct expectations 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.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is 6 sentences long and front-loads the purpose. However, it includes technical jargon (e.g., 'common adapter pipeline') that could be simplified. While not excessively long, it is not as concise as it could be; some sentences could be merged or removed without losing essential information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (11 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the core behavior, data sources, and limitations well. It mentions partial results and the non-execution of paid sources. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it could briefly mention what the output contains (e.g., last activity timestamps per resource) to aid understanding, but this is not a major gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 11 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no textual help. The description only explicitly mentions one parameter (include_paid_sources) and explains its behavior. The other 10 parameters (regions, services, max_regions, resource_ids, inactive_days, lookback_days, max_resources, timeout_seconds, max_events_per_resource, include_administrative_events) are not described. This leaves the agent without guidance on their semantics, which is inadequate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Analyze last known AWS resource activity with conservative semantics.' It identifies the resource (AWS resources) and action (analyze activity). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like listar_recursos_aws or diagnosticar_cobertura_aws, so it loses the highest score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool (for analyzing resource activity with free data sources) and provides context about limitations (regional, 90-day, no data events). It explains that include_paid_sources does not grant consent, giving guidance on that parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or suggest alternatives, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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