scan_rms_compliance_findings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the key safety trait: the operation is read-only and does not modify AWS resources. It doesn't mention auth, rate limits, or return behavior, but for a read-only scanner these are less critical, and the 'security scanner only' phrasing signals no remediation side effects.

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 very short and front-loads the main action in the first sentence. There is some redundancy between 'Read-only' and 'Does not modify any AWS resources', and 'security scanner only' partly restates the name, but overall it is compact and scannable.

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 two optional parameters and a fully documented schema, the description plus schema is mostly adequate. The main gaps are the lack of output/return information and the absence of usage context relative to sibling scanners, though 'security scanner' and the tool name partially compensate.

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% and the parameter descriptions already explain region, provider defaults, Huawei Cloud region IDs, and the single-account fallback. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so it stays at the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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 identifies the action (run) and resource (RMS Compliance Findings, Huawei Cloud security scanner), and the 'only' wording hints it is a focused single-scanner operation. It doesn't explain what the scanner produces or explicitly differentiate it from sibling scan_*_findings tools, though the name itself already provides that differentiation.

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 about when to choose this tool over alternatives like scan_all or scan_security_hub_findings, nor are exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The word 'only' implies it is not a catch-all scan, but this is too indirect to be actionable.

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