scan_inspector_findings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only. Does not modify any AWS resources,' which clearly discloses the non-destructive behavioral trait. This is crucial for AI safety. However, no other traits (e.g., rate limits, output details) are covered.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with the primary action, then safety qualifier. Every word 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 single-parameter scanner with no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it states the action, scope (security scanner), and safety (read-only). It might lack explanation of what Inspector Findings are or the output format, but given the tool's simplicity and sibling context, it is sufficient.

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 is 100% with a single parameter 'region' described as 'AWS region to scan (default: server region)'. The description provides no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so 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 description clearly states the tool runs Inspector Findings security scanner, specifying verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling scan tools like scan_access_analyzer_findings or scan_config_rules_findings, though the mention of 'Inspector Findings' provides some distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other scan tools). The description only notes it is read-only, which is a safety trait but not a usage scenario. For a tool with many siblings, explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice is missing.

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