get_resource_compliance

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses auth requirements and prerequisites, and explains behavior around optional parameters, especially that omittig resource_id changes the result to a rules summary. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation. It does not cover pagination or rate limits, but for a compliance query with an output schema, this is sufficient.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, prerequisites second, then a focused Args list. Every sentence adds new information; there is no repeated or filler content. The structure makes it easy for an agent to scan and extract key details.

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 three optional parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential call context: purpose, prerequisites, and parameter behavior. It could go further by explaining how the parameters interact and how 'all rules summary' behaves when resource_type is also omitted, but the current information is enough to invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates: each parameter is explained with optionality, examples, or allowed values. For instance, resource_type gets a concrete example ('AWS::EC2::Instance') and compliance_filter lists accepted values (COMPLIANT, NON_COMPLIANT, NOT_APPLICABLE). This is exactly the semantics the schema alone lacks.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get AWS Config compliance status for resources.' It clearly states what is obtained (compliance status, drift, non-compliant rules) and is distinct from sibling tools like get_resource_costs or get_configuration_history. No ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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 clear context: use this tool when you need AWS Config compliance status for resources. It also gives an explicit prerequisite ('Requires AWS Config to be enabled and config:Describe* permissions') and notes that omitting resource_id returns an 'all rules summary.' It does not name alternatives, so it misses the highest bar, but the usage context and prerequisites are clear.

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