scan_imdsv2_enforcement

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 clearly states 'Read-only. Does not modify any AWS resources,' which is valuable safety information for an agent. It also discloses the huaweicloud fallback behavior ('org_mode falls back to the current account with a warning') in the parameter description, which is a meaningful behavioral trait beyond a simple scan.

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 sentences with zero waste. The core purpose and safety guarantee are front-loaded, and the provider-specific nuance is placed in the parameter description where it belongs. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only scanner with no required parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, safety, and provider-specific behavior. The only minor gap is that it does not describe what the scan returns or how results are delivered, but with no output schema and a simple read-only operation, this is a small omission.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the huaweicloud provider's region semantics (Huawei Cloud region ID, 'all' to scan every region project, single-account fallback), which goes beyond the bare schema enum. This compensates for the schema's minimal region description.

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 states a specific verb ('Run'), a specific resource ('IMDSv2 Enforcement security scanner'), and explicitly scopes it as read-only. It distinguishes itself from the many sibling scan tools by naming the exact scanner, so an agent can tell it apart from scan_iam_privilege_escalation or scan_public_access_verify without opening schemas.

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 context by naming the scanner and noting it is read-only, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like scan_all or scan_group. It provides no exclusions or conditions (e.g., 'use this when you only need IMDSv2 enforcement'). The sibling list is large, and the description does not route the agent to a broader alternative.

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