scan_disaster_recovery

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and 'Does not modify any AWS resources,' which is critical for an agent to understand the tool's safety profile. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it does not mention other behaviors like error handling or output format. The explicit read-only declaration is a strong positive.

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 two short sentences, efficient and to the point. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the read-only caveat follows immediately. There is no unnecessary fluff or repetition, making it highly concise while still covering essential behavioral 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?

For a simple scanner with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the most important behavioral trait (read-only). The parameter details are fully documented in the schema, and no nested objects or complex return structures exist. It could benefit from a brief note on what the scan actually assesses (e.g., DR readiness indicators), but given the tool's simplicity, the completeness is adequate.

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 100%, with both parameters (region and provider) having detailed descriptions in the schema. The description does not add any additional parameter-specific information, such as examples or constraints beyond what the schema already provides. Thus, it meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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 a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('Disaster Recovery security scanner'), making it obvious that this tool is dedicated to DR security scanning. The word 'only' further narrows its scope, distinguishing it from sibling scan tools like scan_all or scan_secret_exposure. However, it does not explicitly enumerate what the scanner checks (e.g., backup, replication), so it stops short of full differentiation from other scanning tools.

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 usage for disaster recovery security scanning but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. There is no mention of alternatives or conditions for selecting this tool over others. The context signals show many sibling scanning tools, and without guidance an agent might need to infer when this is the right choice. It is clear but not explicitly prescriptive.

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