scan_security_hub_findings

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states read-only and no modifications, which is helpful. However, it lacks details on output, pagination, rate limits, or cost implications. The region default is noted but not expanded.

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, very concise with no unnecessary words. It is clearly front-loaded. Slight redundancy in 'Run ... security scanner only' could be tighter, but still efficient.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and read-only nature. However, it does not explain what the output contains or how results are formatted, which is expected given no output schema. Adequate but not thorough.

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 that has a clear description. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 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 'Run Security Hub Findings security scanner only', identifying the specific AWS service and action. It is distinct from siblings like scan_guardduty_findings and scan_inspector_findings, which target different services.

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 for Security Hub scanning but does not specify when not to use or mention alternative tools. It only clarifies read-only behavior. No explicit usage guidance is provided.

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