scan_access_analyzer_findings

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

The description states 'Read-only. Does not modify any AWS resources.' which is a key behavioral trait, especially with no annotations. However, it does not disclose what the scan does (e.g., returns findings, API calls made) or other behaviors like rate limits or permissions needed.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences front-load the action and safety. No unnecessary words.

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 simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers purpose and safety but lacks details on return values (e.g., findings format) and prerequisites (e.g., enabling Access Analyzer). Could be more complete for an agent.

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 single parameter 'region' has a description in the schema (default: server region), and the description adds no further meaning. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 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 name and description clearly specify 'Access Analyzer Findings' and state it is a security scanner only. This distinguishes it from other scan tools like scan_guardduty_findings or scan_config_rules_findings.

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 mentions 'only' and 'read-only' but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over other scan tools. With many sibling scan tools, a brief note on when to choose this one would improve usability.

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