diagnosticar_cobertura_aws

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool is read-only, lists what it checks, and highlights limitations: adapter permissions reported conservatively, results may be partial, and never prove emptiness. This is comprehensive and transparent, leaving no hidden behaviors.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

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

The description is concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose follows by a bullet-like list of checks and non-actions, then caveats. Every sentence adds value without fluff. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. Ideal for quick comprehension.

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 (5 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the diagnostic scope, limitations, and non-actions well. The output schema explains return values, so that gap is acceptable. However, it omits how parameters influence behavior, which is a notable hole for tool invocation. Overall, mostly complete but missing parameter-behavior links.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meanings. However, it does not describe any of the 5 parameters (regions, services, include_cost_policy, include_permissions, include_activity_sources). The general diagnostic scope indirectly relates, but no specific parameter guidance is given. This is a significant gap, resulting in a low score.

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: 'Explain which AWS coverage is reachable and why it may be partial.' It uses specific verbs (explain, checks) and lists concrete resources and checks (STS, enabled Regions, Resource Explorer indexes). This distinguishes it from siblings like listar_recursos_aws (resource listing) or analizar_riesgo_costes (cost risk analysis), providing a unique and precise purpose.

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 clear context on when to use the tool by stating it is a read-only diagnostic and listing what it does not do (inventory resources, create indexes, change IAM, etc.). It also includes caveats about partial results. However, it does not explicitly compare to siblings or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it misses the highest tier.

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