scan_tag_compliance

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses that the tool is read-only and does not modify AWS resources, which is good for safety. However, it does not detail what specific compliance checks are performed or any other behavioral traits.

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 concise, consisting of one short sentence that front-loads the key purpose and safety info. While it could include more detail, it is efficient and avoids verbosity.

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?

Given the tool simplicity (one optional param, no output schema) and many siblings, the description covers the basics (purpose, safety, parameter). However, it lacks information about output/return values or what compliance checks are executed, leaving some gaps.

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% for the single 'region' parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides (AWS region to scan), so 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 the action ('Run'), the resource ('Tag Compliance security scanner'), and the read-only nature. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'Tag Compliance' among many scan_ tools, though it could be more specific about the scanning purpose.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as other scan_ tools. The description simply names the scanner without providing context for selection.

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