get_resource_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the required cloudtrail:LookupEvents permission and the kind of information returned. It does not mention CloudTrail limitations such as the 90-day LookupEvents window, dependence on CloudTrail being enabled, or whether the operation is read-only, though 'Get' implies that.

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 well ordered: purpose first, output semantics second, permission third, then a concise Args block. Every sentence carries information, and the Args block is justified because the schema itself has no parameter descriptions.

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 three-parameter query tool with no annotations, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, output semantics, permission, and all parameter meanings. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not required. The main gaps are the lack of a pointer to sibling tools and a caveat about CloudTrail retention/coverage limitations behind the word 'full.'

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%, so the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters in the Args block: resource_id is the AWS resource ID or ARN, timeframe_days is the search window of 1-90 days, and limit is the max events 1-50. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema property names and defaults.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the full CloudTrail audit trail for a specific AWS resource.' The second line clarifies output semantics by saying it shows who created, modified, and deleted the resource. It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely related siblings such as query_cloudtrail or get_configuration_history.

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 the intended use case through 'for a specific AWS resource' and the audit-trail framing, and it notes a required IAM permission. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over query_cloudtrail or other siblings, nor does it state when not to use it.

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