scan_patch_compliance_findings

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

With no annotations provided, the description transparently states 'Read-only. Does not modify any AWS resources.', clearly communicating that the tool is safe and non-destructive. This fully covers behavioral disclosure.

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: two sentences that clearly state the tool's purpose and safety. No unnecessary words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and safety. It could mention prerequisites or scan scope, but is sufficient for agent understanding.

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 one parameter (region) already described. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Run Patch Compliance Findings security scanner only', specifying the verb 'Run' and resource 'Patch Compliance Findings security scanner'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like scan_access_analyzer_findings or scan_config_rules_findings by naming a specific scanner type.

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 indicates this tool is for running the patch compliance scanner and is read-only, implying a safe operation. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, the sibling tool names provide context for selection, and the 'only' qualifier narrows its scope.

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