get_analysis_raw

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

With readOnlyHint already declaring the safety profile, the description still adds real behavioral value: it returns the Definition dict verbatim as stored by AWS, and it warns that output can be very large for complex analyses. It omits any mention of auth/permission requirements or whether the raw structure is safe to feed back into update tools despite suggesting that use case.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then rationale, then the size warning at the end — a sensible ordering. The 'Return the full Definition dict exactly as stored by AWS' sentence is slightly redundant with the opening line but earns its place by specifying verbatim output.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, intended use, and the key operational risk (large output). What remains missing is any pointer on how to obtain a valid analysis_id or which sibling to prefer for a lighter-weight view.

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 single analysis_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no format, source, or ID-discovery guidance beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the complete raw analysis definition') and qualifies it with 'raw' and 'exactly as stored by AWS', which separates it somewhat from describe_analysis and snapshot_analysis. However, it never names a sibling tool or contrast case, so an agent still has to infer when raw retrieval beats a summarized describe call.

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?

Provides concrete use contexts — debugging, manual inspection, and extracting complex structures to pass to other tools — which is meaningfully more than implied usage. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., use describe_analysis for a cheap overview), so no exclusions or named alternatives are given.

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