scan_iam_privilege_escalation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full weight. It explicitly states the tool is read-only and does not modify AWS resources, providing critical safety information. However, it does not disclose output format, rate limits, or authorization requirements, which could be helpful.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and safety guarantee. No superfluous information is present.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and safety. However, the lack of output schema or any hints about the return value leaves the agent somewhat in the dark about what to expect after running the scan.

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 coverage for the single parameter 'region' is 100%, and the schema already provides a description. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline.

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 runs an IAM Privilege Escalation security scanner and is read-only. The name is self-explanatory, and the description reinforces that it is specifically for privilege escalation scanning. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling scan tools, which is a minor gap.

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 use when needing to check for privilege escalation, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scan_all' or 'scan_secret_exposure'. No 'when not to use' or prerequisite information is given.

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