scan_public_access_verify

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

With no annotations, the description adds value by stating 'Read-only. Does not modify any AWS resources.' This is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose potential limitations (e.g., scope, permissions needed) or what the output contains, leaving some gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and adds critical read-only information. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It clarifies the tool's non-destructive nature and specificity. A minor gap: it doesn't explain what 'Public Access Verify' checks, but the name and siblings mitigate that.

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% (one parameter 'region' with description). The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline. It repeats the tool's name rather than enriching parameter meaning.

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's purpose: 'Run Public Access Verify security scanner only.' It specifies a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('Public Access Verify security scanner'), and the 'only' distinguishes it from siblings like 'scan_all' or 'scan_group'. No ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among 30+ sibling scanning tools, there is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The word 'only' hints at specificity but lacks actionable criteria.

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