Cloud Audit

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and open-world behavior, but the description adds value by explicitly warning 'AGGRESSIVE — requires human approval' and stating that failed checks are ingested as findings, which implies a write operation. This is consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and adds the approval requirement beyond what annotations cover.

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 sentence with a prominent warning prefix. It's concise and front-loads the critical approval requirement. No fluff, but it sacrifices parameter detail for brevity, which is acceptable given the other dimensions.

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?

The tool is complex (external audit, findings ingestion) and has 4 parameters with no descriptions. The presence of an output schema likely documents findings, but the description omits parameter semantics and any guidance on expected inputs or behavior. An agent would need to guess how to set services or severity correctly. The lack of context on what happens after ingestion (e.g., where findings go) leaves gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters, but it doesn't mention profile, provider, services, or severity. An agent cannot infer what 'services' means (e.g., which AWS services to audit) or how severity filtering works. The defaults exist but their semantics are opaque. This is a significant gap.

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 action (audit), the resource (cloud posture), the tool (Prowler), and the outcome (ingest failed checks as findings). It distinguishes itself from siblings like cloud_asset_discovery or cloud_attack_paths by specifying the audit-and-ingest behavior. The aggressive/approval warning is front-loaded and 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 explains what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternative tools like k8s_posture or cloud_permissions. It doesn't mention conditions like 'use when you need to check cloud compliance' or 'prefer this over cloud_asset_discovery for failed checks'. The approval requirement hints at its seriousness but doesn't provide routing context.

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