AWS MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.0.2
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting specific AWS resources and actions, with clear boundaries (e.g., create-vpc vs. update-vpc-attribute). However, some overlap exists in security group operations (authorize/revoke egress/ingress vs. modify-security-group-rules), which could cause minor confusion for agents.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb-noun pattern with hyphens throughout (e.g., create-vpc, list-subnets, delete-ami). All 54 tools adhere to this convention, making them predictable and easy to parse.
Tool Count2/5
With 54 tools, the count is excessive for a single server, likely overwhelming for agents. While AWS is a broad domain, this feels heavy and could be better scoped into multiple servers (e.g., separate EC2, VPC, S3 servers) for improved usability.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive CRUD and lifecycle coverage across AWS services like EC2, VPC, S3, and RDS. It includes creation, listing, updating, and deletion for most resources, with no obvious gaps for core operations, ensuring agents can handle full workflows.
Average 3.1/5 across 54 of 54 tools scored. Lowest: 2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral information beyond what annotations already provide. Annotations clearly indicate destructiveHint=true (mutation), readOnlyHint=false (write operation), and idempotentHint=true (safe to retry). The description doesn't mention AWS-specific behaviors, error conditions, or what happens when tags don't exist. However, it doesn't contradict the annotations either.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just three words, this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to provide necessary context for a destructive operation. Every word earns its place, but there aren't enough words to be helpful - it's incomplete rather than efficiently structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with complex nested parameters (InstanceArgs object containing Resources array, Tags array with Key/Value objects, and DryRun boolean), no output schema, and only 50% schema coverage, this description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what gets deleted, from what resources, under what conditions, or what the expected outcome is.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With only 50% schema description coverage, the description provides zero parameter information to compensate. The schema documents 'region' and 'InstanceArgs' with sub-properties, but the description doesn't explain what these parameters mean, how they interact, or provide any context about AWS-specific requirements. This leaves significant gaps in parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete instance tag' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what type of instance (EC2 instance), what resource the tag is being deleted from, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'delete-ami' or 'delete-db-instance'. While the verb 'delete' is clear, the resource scope is ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or how it differs from other deletion tools like 'delete-ami' or 'delete-db-instance'. The agent receives no contextual framing for this destructive operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is not read-only, idempotent, or destructive, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic 'Create' action. It doesn't mention that this creates a new AWS resource, potential costs, time requirements, or that it might stop/reboot the source instance. With annotations covering only basic hints, the description fails to provide the behavioral transparency needed for a cloud resource creation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words. While this represents under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, it contains no wasted words and is front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, even if more content is needed for completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex AWS resource creation tool with 2 parameters (one being a complex nested object), no output schema, and annotations that only cover basic hints, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what an AMI is, the creation process implications, expected outputs, or error conditions. The description fails to provide the contextual completeness needed for proper tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with the 'region' parameter well-documented but 'AmiArgs' having nested objects with mixed documentation. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. Since schema coverage is exactly 50%, this meets the baseline expectation where the description doesn't compensate for gaps but doesn't worsen them either.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create an AMI' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what AMI stands for (Amazon Machine Image) or what the creation process entails. While it includes the verb 'Create' and resource 'AMI', it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'launch-ec2-instance' or 'list-amis'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a running instance), when this operation is appropriate, or what alternatives exist among the many sibling tools. For a complex AWS operation, this absence of context is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation (write operation that creates tags). The description doesn't contradict these annotations, but adds minimal behavioral context beyond them. It doesn't explain what 'create' entails (e.g., overwriting existing tags, error behavior, AWS API specifics), though annotations cover the basic safety profile. No additional context about rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects is provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is maximally concise with just two words. While this represents severe under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, according to scoring rules, it receives full points for having zero wasted words and being front-loaded. Every word (both of them) directly states the tool's action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 2 parameters (one complex nested object), 50% schema coverage, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, this description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, AWS-specific behaviors, or how it fits within the broader tagging workflow. The annotations provide basic hints but don't compensate for the description's inadequacy.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (region parameter is described, but InstanceArgs object and its nested properties lack descriptions beyond property names). The description provides no parameter information whatsoever - it doesn't mention required inputs like Resources array or Tags structure. With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, parameters remain poorly documented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create instance tag' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what an 'instance tag' is (AWS EC2 instance tag), what resource it applies to, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'list-instance-tags' or 'delete-instance-tag'. The purpose is minimally stated but lacks differentiation and specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing EC2 instance), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'list-instance-tags' (for viewing) or 'delete-instance-tag' (for removal). There's no contextual framing for this AWS tagging operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide - no information about pagination behavior (implied by NextToken parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what constitutes a successful response. However, it doesn't contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is maximally concise with just two words. While this represents under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, it contains no wasted words and is perfectly front-loaded. Every word (both of them) serves the core purpose statement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 8 parameters (within AmiArgs), no output schema, and complex filtering capabilities, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what AMIs are, what information is returned, how results are structured, or any behavioral characteristics beyond what annotations provide. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively based solely on the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With only 50% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate for the gaps. 'List AMIs' provides zero information about parameters, while the schema documents 8 parameters within AmiArgs. The description doesn't explain what filtering options exist, what Owners means, or how pagination works. This leaves significant parameter semantics undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List AMIs' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what AMIs are (Amazon Machine Images) or clarify the scope of the listing operation. While the verb 'List' is clear, the description fails to distinguish this tool from other list tools like list-ec2-instances or list-buckets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for retrieving AMI metadata, nor does it explain relationships with sibling tools like create-ami or delete-ami. There's no context about prerequisites, permissions, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description doesn't contradict these annotations but adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already cover. It doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by NextToken/MaxResults), rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'list' entails (e.g., returns all tags or filtered subsets). With annotations doing the heavy lifting, the description adds minimal value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, 'List instance tags', which is front-loaded and wastes no space. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of under-specification, but per scoring rules, it earns full points for brevity and zero redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters with nested objects, 50% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's role in AWS tag management, how results are returned, or behavioral nuances. Annotations cover safety, but the description lacks context for effective use, especially compared to sibling tools, making it incomplete for a listing operation with filtering and pagination.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with parameters like 'region' and nested 'InstanceArgs' properties documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the tool name—it doesn't explain what 'instance tags' are, how filtering works, or the purpose of parameters like 'DryRun'. Since schema coverage is moderate, the description fails to compensate for gaps, resulting in a baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List instance tags' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb 'List' and resource 'instance tags' but doesn't clarify what 'instance tags' refers to (e.g., AWS EC2 instance tags) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'list-ec2-instances' or 'create-instance-tag'. The purpose is vague beyond the literal name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list-ec2-instances' (which might list instances with tags) or 'create-instance-tag'/'delete-instance-tag' for tag management. There's no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a mutable operation (readOnlyHint: false) with open-world semantics (openWorldHint: true) and non-destructive (destructiveHint: false). The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations—it doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, idempotency (idempotentHint: false), or what 'import' specifically does (e.g., adding an existing key pair to AWS). With annotations covering safety but not operational details, the description fails to add meaningful value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. No sentence is wasted, achieving optimal conciseness for such a simple statement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with nested objects, no output schema) and moderate annotation coverage, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on what 'import' means operationally, expected outcomes, error conditions, or how it differs from sibling tools. Without output schema or rich behavioral disclosure, the description leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with parameters like 'region' and 'KeyPairArgs' documented in the schema. The description implies a region parameter but adds no semantic details beyond the schema, such as explaining 'KeyPairArgs' structure or when to use 'DryRun'. Since the schema covers half the parameters adequately, the description meets the baseline but doesn't compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('import') and resource ('key pair') with a location constraint ('in the given region'), which is clear but basic. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create-key-pair' or 'list-key-pairs', leaving ambiguity about when to use import versus create. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what 'import' entails compared to alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create-key-pair' or 'list-key-pairs'. The description mentions a region parameter but doesn't explain prerequisites, such as needing an existing public key to import. Without usage context or exclusions, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this—it doesn't explain what 'authorize' does operationally (e.g., adds rules, may affect network traffic), rate limits, or authentication needs. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, though it lacks detail due to brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (2 parameters with nested objects, 50% schema coverage, no output schema, and non-readOnly operation), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's purpose in depth, parameter usage, or behavioral implications, leaving gaps for an AI agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with complex nested parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics—it doesn't explain what 'SecurityGroupArgs' contains or how to structure IP permissions. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving key parameters like 'DryRun' or 'TagSpecifications' unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('authorize') and resource ('security group egress') but is vague about what 'authorize' entails—it doesn't specify that this adds outbound traffic rules. It distinguishes from sibling 'authorize-security-group-ingress' by mentioning 'egress', but lacks detail on scope or effect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'modify-security-group-rules' or 'revoke-security-group-egress'. The description only mentions the region context without usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a mutable, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: false), but the description doesn't add behavioral context beyond 'Create'. It fails to disclose that this generates a new key pair (likely with a private key returned), requires AWS permissions, may have rate limits, or that 'DryRun' parameter allows permission checks without actual creation. With annotations covering basic traits, the description adds minimal value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words, front-loading the core action ('Create a key pair') and essential context ('in the given region'). Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters with nested objects, 50% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations providing basic hints), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., private key material), behavioral nuances like idempotency or permissions, or how to handle parameters like 'DryRun'. For a creation tool with significant parameter details, more context is needed to be complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with parameters like 'region' and 'KeyPairArgs' documented in the schema but nested details (e.g., 'KeyName', 'DryRun') partially covered. The description mentions 'region' but doesn't explain parameter meanings beyond what the schema provides, such as the purpose of 'DryRun' or 'KeyType' options. It compensates slightly by implying regional context but doesn't fully address the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('key pair') with regional context ('in the given region'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'import-key-pair' or 'delete-key-pair', which would require mentioning this creates a new key pair from scratch rather than importing or deleting existing ones.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'import-key-pair' or 'delete-key-pair', nor does it mention prerequisites such as AWS permissions or regional availability. It lacks explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide key behavioral hints: destructiveHint=true (indicating permanent deletion), idempotentHint=true (safe to retry), and readOnlyHint=false (confirms it's a mutation). The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'Delete an AMI', such as irreversible consequences, permissions needed, or AWS-specific constraints. With annotations covering safety and idempotency, a baseline 3 is appropriate, but the description misses opportunities to add value like warning about associated snapshots or dry-run usage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Delete an AMI', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. For a tool with clear annotations and schema, this brevity is efficient, though it may sacrifice helpful context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with nested parameters) and lack of output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or critical context like the impact of 'DeleteAssociatedSnapshots'. Annotations help, but for a high-stakes deletion tool, more guidance is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with parameters like 'region' and 'AmiArgs.ImageId' described, but 'DeleteAssociatedSnapshots' and 'DryRun' lack schema descriptions. The description provides no parameter information, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. Since the schema handles half the parameters adequately, the baseline is 3, but the description adds zero value beyond what's in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete an AMI' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (AMI), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'terminate-ec2-instance' or other delete operations, nor does it specify what AMI stands for (Amazon Machine Image). It's adequate but lacks specificity about scope or differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., AMI must not be in use), when to avoid it, or how it relates to siblings like 'list-amis' or 'create-ami'. This leaves the agent without context for appropriate tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (mutation), openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that this updates descriptions specifically for ingress rules, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't mention what happens to existing descriptions not updated, whether this requires specific IAM permissions, or any rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could benefit from slightly more detail given the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with complex nested parameters (SecurityGroupArgs with multiple sub-properties), 50% schema coverage, no output schema, and no sibling differentiation, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to identify which rules to update, or the relationship between the two parameter structures.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 50% (only 1 of 2 parameters has descriptions in schema), the description fails to compensate. It mentions 'region' and 'security group rule ingress' but doesn't explain the complex SecurityGroupArgs structure, the relationship between GroupId/GroupName, or what IpPermissions/SecurityGroupRuleDescriptions arrays should contain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update the description') and target resource ('security group rule ingress'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'update-security-group-rule-descriptions-egress' beyond specifying 'ingress', which is minimal differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'modify-security-group-rules' or the egress version. It mentions 'in the given region' but doesn't explain why region matters or any prerequisites for using this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide significant behavioral information (non-readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's burden is lower. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare - it doesn't mention AWS permissions needed, potential errors, rate limits, or what 'attach' actually entails operationally. However, it doesn't contradict the annotations either.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple action and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in conveying the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a networking configuration tool with no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what successful attachment means, what gets returned, error conditions, or how this fits into broader AWS networking. The annotations help but don't compensate for the lack of operational context in the description itself.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With only 50% schema description coverage (the nested InternetGatewayArgs object lacks its own description), the description provides no parameter information to compensate. It doesn't explain the relationship between region and InternetGatewayArgs, what the DryRun parameter does, or the significance of the required IDs. The description adds zero semantic value beyond what's minimally present in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('attach') and target resource ('internet gateway to a VPC'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'detach-internet-gateway' or explain how this differs from related networking operations like 'associate-route-table' or 'create-internet-gateway'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing internet gateway and VPC), when this operation is appropriate in network setup workflows, or what happens if the gateway is already attached. The agent receives no usage context beyond the basic action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds that it's an authorization action for security group ingress, implying it modifies network access rules, which aligns with annotations. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral details like permission requirements, potential side effects on existing rules, or rate limits, leaving gaps despite annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, efficiently conveying the core action and resource. It's appropriately front-loaded and avoids unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex AWS security tool with nested parameters, no output schema, and partial schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, authentication needs, or how it fits with sibling tools like 'revoke-security-group-ingress', leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 50% schema description coverage and 2 parameters (one complex nested object), the description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying a 'region' parameter. It doesn't explain the structure or purpose of 'SecurityGroupArgs', key fields like 'CidrIp' or 'GroupName', or how they interact, failing to compensate for the schema's partial coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Authorize') and resource ('security group ingress') with regional context ('in the given region'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'authorize-security-group-egress' or explain what 'ingress' specifically means in AWS context, keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create-security-group', 'modify-security-group-rules', or its sibling 'authorize-security-group-egress'. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusion criteria, offering minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint: false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint: false), but the description adds minimal context beyond 'Create'. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., default routes, association requirements) or mention the openWorldHint: true annotation's implications. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with complex nested parameters (RouteTableArgs), no output schema, and annotations that don't fully explain behavior (e.g., openWorldHint implications), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on what the tool returns, error conditions, or how it integrates with other AWS components, making it incomplete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with the 'region' parameter well-documented but 'RouteTableArgs' having nested properties. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond implying a region is needed. It doesn't clarify the purpose of VpcId, TagSpecifications, DryRun, or ClientToken, leaving significant gaps in understanding the input requirements.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('route table'), and specifies the region context ('in the given region'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create-vpc' or 'create-subnet' beyond the resource type, which are all AWS infrastructure creation tools with similar patterns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing VPC), related operations (e.g., associating routes), or sibling tools like 'associate-route-table' or 'delete-route-table' that might be used in conjunction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide destructiveHint=false, indicating it's non-destructive (creates new resources). The description adds that it launches instances, which aligns with annotations. However, it lacks behavioral context like cost implications, permissions needed (AWS IAM), rate limits, or that it may incur charges. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate—some value added but minimal behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Launch an EC2 instance in a given region'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. No extraneous information or redundancy is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (2 parameters with nested objects, 50% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations beyond destructiveHint), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., instance IDs), error conditions, or dependencies on other AWS resources. For a tool that creates infrastructure with many configurable options, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, meaning half the parameters lack descriptions in the schema. The tool description mentions 'region' and implies configuration via 'Ec2Args', but adds no semantic details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., explaining that 'Ec2Args' includes critical fields like 'ImageId' or 'InstanceType'). It doesn't compensate for the low coverage, leaving many parameters under-explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Launch') and resource ('EC2 instance') with the constraint 'in a given region'. It distinguishes from other EC2-related tools like 'start-ec2-instance' or 'terminate-ec2-instance' by specifying creation rather than state management. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'create-ami' or other creation tools in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a VPC, subnet, or security group first), nor does it contrast with other instance management tools like 'list-ec2-instances' or 'reboot-ec2-instance'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide critical behavioral hints: destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds minimal context beyond this, only mentioning the region parameter. It doesn't explain what 'revoke' entails operationally, potential side effects, or AWS-specific behaviors like eventual consistency. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool name that already conveys the core action, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive AWS operation with complex parameters (2 parameters, nested objects, 50% schema coverage) and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks information about required permissions, error conditions, return values, or how this tool fits into broader security group management workflows alongside sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with complex nested parameters like SecurityGroupArgs containing IpPermissions. The description only mentions 'region', ignoring all other parameters. It fails to explain the relationship between parameters (e.g., GroupId vs GroupName, DryRun usage) or provide context beyond the schema, leaving significant gaps in understanding parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('revoke') and resource ('security group egress'), specifying it occurs 'in the given region'. It distinguishes from 'revoke-security-group-ingress' by focusing on egress rules. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other AWS security group tools like 'modify-security-group-rules' or 'authorize-security-group-egress'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'modify-security-group-rules' or 'delete-security-group'. The description mentions the region parameter but doesn't explain prerequisites, dependencies, or typical use cases for revoking egress rules versus other security group operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, covering key behavioral traits. The description adds minimal context beyond annotations, mentioning region but not detailing irreversible consequences, permissions needed, or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is appropriately concise for a straightforward deletion tool, front-loading the core action. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more informative without losing efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no output schema and incomplete parameter coverage, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on consequences (e.g., data loss, backups), error handling, or response format, leaving significant gaps for safe agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with parameters like 'region' and 'DBInstanceIdentifier' well-described in schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond implying region and DB instance are required, failing to compensate for coverage gaps (e.g., backup/snapshot behaviors). Baseline 3 applies as schema does moderate lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('RDS DB instance'), with regional context ('in the given region'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'terminate-ec2-instance' by specifying RDS DB instances, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'delete-db-instance' (no other DB deletion tool exists).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update-db-instance' or prerequisites. The description mentions region but doesn't specify when deletion is appropriate versus other operations. Siblings include 'list-db-instances' for discovery, but no explicit usage context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide critical hints (destructiveHint: true, readOnlyHint: false, etc.), but the description adds minimal behavioral context. It doesn't explain the destructive nature beyond annotations, potential costs, time to provision, or error conditions. However, it doesn't contradict annotations, so it earns a baseline score for not undermining structured data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly communicates the tool's function, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex, destructive tool with 2 parameters (one nested with many sub-properties), 50% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral outcomes, error handling, or integration context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand full usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 50%, the description doesn't compensate by explaining parameters beyond the schema. It mentions 'region' and implies 'DBInstanceArgs' but adds no details on required fields, defaults, or constraints. The schema handles most parameter documentation, so this meets the baseline for adequate coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new RDS DB instance') with geographic context ('in the given region'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'update-db-instance' and 'delete-db-instance' by specifying creation, though it doesn't explicitly mention these alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update-db-instance' or 'list-db-instances', nor does it mention prerequisites such as AWS credentials or region availability. The description only states what it does without contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide key behavioral hints: readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=false (safe), openWorldHint=true (supports custom parameters), and idempotentHint=false (non-idempotent). The description adds minimal context beyond this, stating it creates a new gateway but not elaborating on side effects, permissions, or AWS-specific behaviors like eventual consistency. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action without unnecessary words. It earns its place by clearly stating the tool's primary function, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no output schema, low schema coverage (50%), and complex nested parameters, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what an internet gateway is, how it integrates with AWS services, what the output looks like, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with 'region' and 'DryRun' well-documented in the schema, but 'TagSpecifications' and its nested properties lack descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying a region is required, failing to compensate for the coverage gap or explain complex tagging structures.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('internet gateway') with regional context ('in the given region'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'attach-internet-gateway' or 'detach-internet-gateway', which would require mentioning this creates a new standalone gateway rather than attaching to a VPC.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a VPC to attach it to later), exclusions, or related tools like 'attach-internet-gateway' for making it functional. This leaves the agent without context for appropriate tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, as it doesn't mention side effects, permissions, or rate limits. However, it doesn't contradict the annotations, so it meets the baseline for adding some value (the region constraint) without rich disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with no output schema, low schema coverage, and annotations that only cover basic hints, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on required inputs (e.g., VpcId), behavioral traits like idempotency or error handling, and expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with the 'region' parameter well-documented but 'SecurityGroupArgs' nested object only partially described. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond implying a 'region' input, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does some heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('security group'), with the additional context of 'in the given region' specifying scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete-security-group' or 'list-security-groups' by the verb, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar creation tools like 'create-vpc' or 'create-subnet'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a VPC), exclusions, or comparisons to other tools like 'modify-security-group-rules' or 'update-security-group-rule-descriptions-egress' for related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a non-destructive, idempotent, open-world write operation (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true). The description adds no behavioral details beyond 'Create', such as what happens on conflicts, rate limits, or authentication needs. It doesn't contradict annotations but provides minimal extra context, meeting the lower bar with annotations present.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words, front-loading the core action and resource. It's appropriately sized for a tool with annotations and a detailed schema, avoiding redundancy while stating the essential purpose efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (2 parameters with nested objects, 50% schema coverage, no output schema) and annotations covering safety but not operational details, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain critical aspects like required VPC association, idempotent behavior, or what the tool returns, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool in a cloud environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with detailed descriptions for nested SubnetArgs properties but none for the top-level 'region' parameter. The description mentions 'region' but adds no semantic context beyond what the schema implies (e.g., AWS-specific usage). It doesn't compensate for the coverage gap or clarify parameter interactions, aligning with the baseline for moderate schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('a subnet'), and specifies the context ('in the given region'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other subnet-related tools like 'create-vpc' or 'update-subnet-attribute' beyond the basic verb, missing explicit sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create-vpc' for broader network setup or 'update-subnet-attribute' for modifications. It lacks any mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing VPC), exclusions, or recommended workflows, offering minimal contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (correct for a mutation), idempotentHint=true (reboots are idempotent), and destructiveHint=false (reboot preserves data). The description adds the regional context but doesn't explain what 'reboot' means operationally (e.g., temporary interruption vs. data loss, instance state transitions). No rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions are described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, zero waste. Front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no output schema and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens during reboot, expected response format, error conditions, or permissions needed. The annotations help but don't compensate for missing operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (region has description, Ec2Args object doesn't). The description mentions 'region' but doesn't explain its role beyond 'given region'. It doesn't clarify InstanceIds format or DryRun purpose. With medium schema coverage, the description adds minimal value beyond what's already documented in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Reboot') and resource ('EC2 instance'), and specifies the region context. It distinguishes from siblings like start-ec2-instance and stop-ec2-instance by focusing on reboot, but doesn't explicitly contrast with terminate-ec2-instance which is more destructive.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like stop-ec2-instance or terminate-ec2-instance. The description mentions region but doesn't explain when region parameter is necessary versus using defaults. No prerequisites or permissions requirements are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a non-destructive, idempotent write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this - it doesn't explain what 'stop' means operationally (e.g., instance state transition, billing implications, or that it's reversible with 'start-ec2-instance'). However, it doesn't contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that states the core functionality. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that performs a state-changing operation on cloud infrastructure with multiple parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'stop' means in AWS context, doesn't mention the reversible nature (contrasted with 'terminate'), doesn't discuss permissions or error conditions, and provides minimal parameter guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 50% schema description coverage, the description doesn't add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'region' but the schema already documents this parameter. The description doesn't explain the Ec2Args object or its sub-parameters (InstanceIds, Force, Hibernate, DryRun), leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('stop') and resource ('EC2 instance'), and specifies the region context. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'terminate-ec2-instance' by focusing on stopping rather than permanent termination, though it doesn't explicitly mention this distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reboot-ec2-instance' or 'terminate-ec2-instance'. It mentions the region parameter but offers no context about prerequisites, permissions, or appropriate use cases for stopping versus other instance state changes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a non-destructive, idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds that it updates descriptions specifically for egress rules, which provides some behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't mention important aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the rule doesn't exist, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with this complexity and gets straight to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with complex nested parameters (SecurityGroupArgs with multiple sub-properties), no output schema, and only 50% schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to structure the SecurityGroupArgs object, or provide examples, leaving significant gaps for proper tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 50% schema description coverage, the description doesn't compensate for the coverage gap. It mentions 'region' and implies 'SecurityGroupArgs' through context, but adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. The baseline is appropriate given the partial schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update the description') and target resource ('security group rule egress'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'update-security-group-rule-descriptions-ingress' beyond the directional term 'egress', which might not be sufficient for an agent to distinguish between inbound and outbound rule updates without additional context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance by specifying 'in the given region', but offers no explicit when-to-use advice, prerequisites, or alternatives. Given the sibling tool 'update-security-group-rule-descriptions-ingress', it fails to clarify when to choose egress over ingress updates, leaving the agent without proper usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (mutation), openWorldHint=true (supports many parameters), idempotentHint=true (safe to retry), and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying the resource types (Gateway/Interface endpoints) and region scope, but doesn't elaborate on permissions, rate limits, or mutation effects beyond what annotations imply. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose: action, resource, identifier, and scope. There is no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with essential details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 2 parameters (one nested with many sub-parameters), 50% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering basic behavioral hints, the description is insufficient. It lacks critical context such as what fields are updatable, potential side effects, error conditions, or example usage, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with detailed descriptions for nested parameters in VpcArgs but none for the top-level 'region' parameter. The description mentions 'region' and 'VPC endpoint ID', aligning with schema parameters, but adds no additional semantic context (e.g., format examples, constraints, or interactions between parameters). With moderate schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('VPC endpoint') with specific types mentioned (Gateway endpoint, Interface endpoint). It includes the required identifier (VPC endpoint ID) and scope (region). However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like update-vpc-attribute or update-subnet-attribute, which are also AWS VPC update operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing VPC endpoint), exclusions (e.g., what cannot be updated), or suggest sibling tools for related operations like creating or deleting VPC endpoints. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide good coverage (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description doesn't need to repeat these. However, it adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations—it clarifies the three possible association targets but doesn't explain implications like routing changes or conflicts.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resources. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (mutation with nested parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines, detailed parameter semantics, and behavioral nuances (e.g., idempotency effects, error conditions), leaving the agent to rely heavily on annotations and schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (only 'region' and 'DryRun' have descriptions; nested object properties lack them). The description mentions 'subnet or internet gateway or virtual private gateway', which hints at GatewayId and SubnetId usage, but doesn't clarify their mutual exclusivity or provide format examples. This partially compensates but leaves gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('associate') and the resources involved ('route table with a subnet or internet gateway or virtual private gateway'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'disassociate-route-table' or 'replace-route-table-association', which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'disassociate-route-table' or 'replace-route-table-association'. It also doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing existing route tables and targets) or constraints (e.g., one route table per subnet).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (mutation), openWorldHint=true (may fail for existing buckets), idempotentHint=true (safe retries), and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, stating the creation action and region constraint. It doesn't elaborate on potential failures (e.g., bucket name conflicts, region limitations) or auth requirements, but annotations cover core traits adequately.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with nested parameters), lack of output schema, and 50% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, but the description doesn't address return values, error conditions, or detailed parameter usage. It meets a baseline for a creation tool but leaves gaps in full contextual understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with parameters 'region' and 'S3Args' documented in the schema. The description mentions 'region' but not 'S3Args' or its nested properties (Bucket, CreateBucketConfiguration, ObjectLockEnabledForBucket). It adds marginal value by implying region is required, but doesn't compensate for the coverage gap or explain parameter relationships beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new S3 bucket') with the constraint 'in the given region'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete-bucket' and 'list-buckets' by specifying creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other AWS resource creation tools (e.g., 'create-vpc'), though the resource type is specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., AWS credentials, permissions), when not to use it (e.g., for existing buckets), or refer to sibling tools like 'list-buckets' for checking existing buckets. Usage is implied by the action but lacks explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide significant behavioral information (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's burden is reduced. The description adds minimal context beyond this - it doesn't mention cost implications, that VPC creation is a foundational networking operation, or typical completion time. However, it doesn't contradict the annotations either.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the input schema (12 nested properties) and absence of an output schema, the description is insufficient. While annotations cover safety aspects, the description doesn't address what happens after creation, error conditions, or the significance of VPC creation in AWS networking. For a tool with such complex parameters and no output documentation, more context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 50% schema description coverage, the description mentions the 'region' parameter but doesn't explain the complex 'VpcArgs' object that contains 12 properties. While the schema documents these parameters well, the description doesn't add meaningful semantic context about parameter relationships (e.g., that CidrBlock is typically required, or how IPv4 and IPv6 parameters interact).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new VPC'), with the additional context of 'in the given region' that specifies a key operational parameter. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other VPC-related tools like 'create-subnet' or 'create-route-table' that might also create resources within a VPC context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing AWS credentials), when not to use it (e.g., for existing VPCs), or how it relates to sibling tools like 'create-subnet' or 'delete-vpc' that operate on VPCs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a destructive, non-read-only, idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this—it specifies deletion by ID and region, but doesn't elaborate on what 'destructive' entails (e.g., irreversible removal, impact on dependent resources) or mention the DryRun parameter's purpose for permission checks.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words—it directly states the tool's action and key parameters. It's appropriately front-loaded and efficient, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no output schema and moderate schema coverage, the description is minimal but functional. It covers the basic operation but lacks depth on behavioral implications (e.g., idempotency effects, error conditions) or integration with sibling tools, leaving gaps for an agent to infer usage in complex AWS workflows.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with the 'region' parameter documented but the nested 'InternetGatewayArgs' object lacking descriptions for its properties beyond IDs. The description mentions 'by ID in the given region', which aligns with the schema but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what's implied, such as explaining the DryRun parameter's utility or format requirements for IDs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('an internet gateway by ID in the given region'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'detach-internet-gateway' or 'delete-vpc', which might be related operations in the same AWS context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the gateway must be detached first), consequences, or related tools like 'detach-internet-gateway' or 'delete-vpc' that might be needed in sequence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover key behavioral traits (destructive, idempotent, open-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds minimal context beyond annotations—it specifies the region parameter but doesn't explain deletion effects (e.g., irreversible, impact on instances) or permissions. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words, front-loading the core action and resource. It's appropriately sized for a simple deletion tool, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the destructive nature (annotations cover this), lack of output schema, and 50% schema coverage, the description is minimal but functional. It states the action and region, but for a destructive tool, more context on consequences or error handling would improve completeness. Annotations help, but the description could add more value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with parameters like 'region' and 'KeyPairArgs' documented in the schema. The description mentions 'region' but adds no details beyond the schema's default and description. It doesn't clarify parameter interactions (e.g., using KeyPairId vs. KeyName) or compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a key pair') with regional context ('in the given region'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete-ami' or 'delete-bucket' beyond the resource type, which is implied but not explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'import-key-pair' or 'create-key-pair', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the key pair ID or name). The description only states what it does, not when or why to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide key behavioral hints (destructiveHint: true, idempotentHint: true, readOnlyHint: false, openWorldHint: true), so the description doesn't need to repeat these. It adds minimal context by specifying 'in the given region,' but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., impact on attached instances), or error handling, offering only basic operational scope.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words, clearly front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with nested parameters) and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, but the description misses critical context like success criteria, error cases, or dependencies, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with parameters like 'region' and 'SecurityGroupArgs' documented in the schema. The description doesn't add meaning beyond implying region usage, failing to clarify parameter relationships (e.g., GroupId vs. GroupName) or DryRun implications. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema covers half the parameters adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a security group'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other deletion tools in the sibling list (like delete-ami, delete-bucket, etc.), missing explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., ensuring no dependencies), exclusions, or comparisons to related tools like 'delete-security-group-rules' (not in siblings) or 'modify-security-group-rules', leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide critical hints: destructiveHint=true (confirms deletion), idempotentHint=true (safe to retry), readOnlyHint=false (write operation), and openWorldHint=true (external effects). The description adds minimal context beyond this, stating the target but not elaborating on consequences (e.g., network disruption, irreversible action) or AWS-specific behaviors like eventual consistency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Delete a subnet') and efficiently specifies the required inputs (subnet ID and region), making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, but the description doesn't address critical context like error conditions (e.g., dependency failures), return values, or integration with sibling tools (e.g., use 'list-subnets' first).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with 'region' and 'SubnetId' documented but 'DryRun' lacking description in the schema. The description mentions 'subnet ID' and 'region', aligning with schema parameters but not adding meaningful details like format examples (e.g., subnet-abc123) or explaining 'DryRun' functionality for permission checks.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a subnet by subnet ID in the given region'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete-vpc' or 'delete-route-table', which also delete AWS resources but target different entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., subnet must be empty), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete default subnets), or related tools like 'list-subnets' to identify targets or 'create-subnet' for creation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, covering key behavioral traits. The description adds minimal context beyond this—it specifies 'by VPC ID in the given region', which is useful but doesn't elaborate on side effects (e.g., cascading deletions) or permissions. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Delete a VPC') and includes essential details ('by VPC ID in the given region'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature (annotations cover this), no output schema, and moderate parameter coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the resource and action but lacks critical context like prerequisites (e.g., VPC must be empty), irreversible effects, or error conditions, which are important for a destructive operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with 'region' and 'DryRun' documented but 'VpcId' lacking description in the schema. The description mentions 'VPC ID' and 'region', partially compensating for the gap. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions or the purpose of 'DryRun' beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for moderate schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a VPC by VPC ID in the given region'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'delete-subnet' or 'delete-route-table' by specifying VPC deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other deletion tools beyond naming the resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., VPC must be empty), warn about irreversible consequences, or suggest alternatives like 'update-vpc-attribute' for non-destructive changes. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide key hints: readOnlyHint=false (mutation), openWorldHint=true (AWS-specific), idempotentHint=true (safe to retry), destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this—it implies a detachment action but doesn't clarify side effects (e.g., loss of internet access for the VPC) or authentication needs. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words—it directly states the tool's function without redundancy. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with annotations covering safety (idempotent, non-destructive) but no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the action but lacks context on outcomes (e.g., what happens post-detachment, error conditions). Given the annotations provide some behavioral transparency, it's not severely incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with parameters 'region' and 'InternetGatewayArgs' documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no clarification on DryRun behavior or ID formats). Baseline 3 is appropriate given moderate schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('detach') and target resource ('internet gateway from a VPC'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'disassociate-route-table' or 'attach-internet-gateway' beyond the obvious name difference, missing explicit comparison.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the internet gateway must be attached first), consequences of detachment, or related tools like 'delete-internet-gateway' for removal versus detachment.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover key behavioral traits: readOnlyHint=false (mutation), openWorldHint=true (flexible inputs), idempotentHint=true (safe retries), destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds context by specifying the target resources (subnet/gateway), which isn't in annotations. However, it doesn't disclose additional behaviors like permissions needed, error conditions, or effects on network routing, leaving some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that front-loads the core action without unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description is minimal but functional. Annotations provide good behavioral coverage (non-destructive, idempotent), but the description lacks details on outcomes (e.g., what happens after disassociation) or error handling. It's adequate given annotations but incomplete for full agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (one of two parameters documented). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain AssociationId format or region implications). With moderate schema coverage, the description doesn't compensate for gaps, resulting in a baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Disassociate') and resource ('route table'), specifying the targets ('subnet or internet gateway or virtual private gateway'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'associate-route-table' by indicating the opposite action, though it doesn't explicitly compare them. The purpose is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'replace-route-table-association' or 'delete-route-table', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., existing association). It only states what the tool does without context for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage from the action name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds the regional scope constraint ('in the given region'), which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like pagination details (implied by ContinuationToken in schema) or rate limits, keeping it at a moderate score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters with nested objects), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), but no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on output format, error handling, or usage context, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's effectiveness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with the 'region' parameter well-documented in the schema but 'S3Args' having nested properties described. The description mentions 'given region' but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides for parameters like MaxBuckets or Prefix. It partially compensates for the coverage gap by implying regional filtering, but not enough to elevate the score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all the S3 buckets'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-amis' or 'list-db-instances' beyond mentioning S3 buckets specifically, which is why it doesn't reach a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a region parameter but doesn't explain when to use this tool over other listing tools (e.g., for S3-specific operations vs. general AWS resource listing) or any prerequisites. This leaves the agent with minimal contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide strong behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, etc.), so the bar is lower. The description adds minimal context by specifying 'all' instances and region scope, but doesn't disclose additional traits like pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs. It doesn't contradict annotations, but adds limited value beyond them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and scope clearly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (list operation) and rich annotations covering safety and behavior, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks output details (no output schema provided) and doesn't address potential nuances like error handling or result formatting, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with the 'region' parameter well-documented but 'DBInstanceArgs' lacking detailed description. The description mentions 'region' and implies filtering via 'all instances', but doesn't explain the 'DBInstanceIdentifier' parameter's role in filtering beyond what the schema hints at. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but not fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('RDS DB instances') with scope ('in the given region'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-ec2-instances' or 'list-amis' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list-ec2-instances' for other resources or clarify if this is the primary way to list RDS instances versus other methods. It lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this—it mentions regional filtering but doesn't address pagination (implied by NextToken/MaxResults in schema), rate limits, or authentication needs. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('List EC2 instances') and includes essential scope ('in a given region'). Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters with nested objects), rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on pagination, error handling, or output format, which would help the agent use it correctly. The annotations provide safety context, but the description could add more operational guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with parameters like 'region' and 'Ec2Args.Filters' well-documented in the schema. The description only mentions 'region' and implies filtering but adds no details on parameter usage, syntax, or examples. It doesn't compensate for the coverage gap, so the baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does partial work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('EC2 instances') with regional scope ('in a given region'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list-amis' or 'list-security-groups' by specifying EC2 instances. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'launch-ec2-instance' or other EC2-related tools beyond the obvious list vs. create distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list-amis' or 'list-instance-tags' for related queries, nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., AWS credentials) or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover key traits: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide (e.g., no mention of pagination, rate limits, or error handling). However, it doesn't contradict annotations, so it meets the lower bar with annotations present.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. No structural issues or redundancy are present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (a read-only list operation), rich annotations, and 50% schema coverage, the description is minimally complete. However, with no output schema and incomplete parameter documentation, it lacks details on return values (e.g., format, pagination tokens) and advanced filtering, leaving gaps for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with parameters like 'region' and nested 'InternetGatewayArgs' properties documented in the schema. The description mentions 'given region', aligning with the 'region' parameter, but adds no details on filter usage, pagination (NextToken/MaxResults), or DryRun behavior. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but leaves key parameters unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List all') and resource ('internet gateways'), and specifies the scope ('in the given region'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-vpcs' or 'list-subnets', but the resource specificity is clear. The title annotation repeats this, but the description stands alone as adequate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., AWS credentials), relate to siblings like 'create-internet-gateway' or 'delete-internet-gateway', or indicate typical workflows. The agent must infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal context about regional scope but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs beyond what annotations provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it appropriately sized for its purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only list tool with good annotations but no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action but lacks details on return values, error handling, or usage context, leaving gaps in completeness given the tool's complexity and parameter richness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with parameters like 'region' and nested 'KeyPairArgs' properties documented in the schema. The description mentions 'given region' but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, such as explaining filter usage or dry-run implications, resulting in a baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('key pairs') with regional scope ('in the given region'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling list tools like 'list-amis' or 'list-ec2-instances' beyond the resource type, missing explicit sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions, and there's no reference to related tools like 'create-key-pair' or 'delete-key-pair' for lifecycle management.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond this, such as pagination details (implied by NextToken/MaxResults in schema) or permission requirements. It doesn't contradict annotations, but offers minimal extra context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List all security group rules') without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a listing tool, with no wasted space or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is minimal but functional. It states what the tool does, but lacks details on usage, parameter interplay, or output format, which could aid an agent in selecting and invoking it correctly. It's adequate but leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with parameters like 'region' and 'SecurityGroupRuleArgs' documented in the schema. The description mentions 'given region' but doesn't elaborate on parameter usage, such as filtering with SecurityGroupRuleArgs or pagination. It adds little beyond the schema, but the baseline is 3 due to moderate schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List all') and resource ('security group rules') with regional scope ('in the given region'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-security-groups' or 'modify-security-group-rules', which would require mentioning this is specifically for rules within groups rather than groups themselves or modification operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that this is for listing rules within security groups, as opposed to 'list-security-groups' for listing groups themselves or 'modify-security-group-rules' for changes. The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide excellent coverage (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), so the bar is lower. The description adds minimal behavioral context - it implies region-based filtering but doesn't mention pagination (NextToken/MaxResults), dry-run capability, or filtering options. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only tool with good annotations but complex parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action but lacks details about filtering capabilities, pagination behavior, response format, and differentiation from related tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 50% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but only mentions the 'region' parameter. It doesn't explain the complex SecurityGroupArgs object with filtering, pagination, and dry-run capabilities. The schema does heavy lifting for documented parameters, but undocumented aspects lack description support.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('security groups') with geographic scope ('in the given region'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-security-group-rules' or mention that this lists security group metadata rather than rules.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list-security-group-rules' or 'create-security-group'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or constraints beyond the region parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds the region constraint, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination (implied by NextToken in schema), rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'all' entails (e.g., includes default subnets). No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose and key constraint. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters with nested objects), rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and region scope but lacks details on usage, parameter nuances, or return values. With annotations handling safety, it's complete enough for a simple list operation but could be more informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with the 'region' parameter well-documented but 'SubnetArgs' having nested properties described. The description mentions 'region' but adds no semantic details beyond the schema (e.g., format, valid values). It doesn't explain 'SubnetArgs' or its filters, leaving gaps. Baseline is 3 due to moderate schema coverage, but description doesn't fully compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List all the subnets') and specifies the resource ('subnets') with a scope constraint ('in the given region'). It uses a specific verb ('List') that distinguishes it from creation/deletion tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list-vpcs' or 'list-security-groups' beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list-vpcs' for related resources, nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., needing AWS credentials) or exclusions (e.g., not for filtering by specific attributes beyond region). The context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this—it implies regional scoping but doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by NextToken parameter), rate limits, or authentication requirements. With annotations doing heavy lifting, the description adds some value but not rich behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters with nested objects, no output schema), the description is minimal. Annotations provide safety and idempotency info, but the description lacks details on return values, error handling, or usage context. It's adequate for a basic list tool but leaves gaps in guiding the agent on full functionality.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with parameters like region and VpcArgs documented in the schema. The description mentions 'given region' but doesn't add details beyond what the schema provides for region or explain the complex VpcArgs object (which includes filtering, pagination, etc.). It compensates slightly but doesn't fully address the coverage gap, meeting the baseline for moderate schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all the VPCs') with regional scope ('in the given region'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like list-subnets or list-route-tables, which would require mentioning it's specifically for VPCs rather than other AWS resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from other list tools in the sibling set. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation), openWorldHint=true (flexible inputs), idempotentHint=true (safe retries), and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, as 'Modify' implies mutation but doesn't detail effects like permission requirements, rate limits, or what 'modify' entails (e.g., partial updates). It doesn't contradict annotations, but provides little extra insight given the annotations cover safety and idempotency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. No extraneous words or unnecessary details are included.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (2 parameters with nested objects, no output schema) and annotations that cover safety (non-destructive, idempotent) but not full behavior, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies the action and region context, but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or how modifications interact with existing rules. For a mutation tool with moderate complexity, more completeness would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with detailed descriptions for nested parameters like 'CidrIpv4' and 'FromPort', but the top-level 'region' and 'SecurityGroupArgs' lack descriptions in the schema. The description mentions 'region' and implies rule modification, adding some context, but doesn't explain parameter relationships (e.g., that 'SecurityGroupRules' contains rule IDs and properties) or usage nuances. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but not fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Modify') and resource ('security group rule'), with the region as context. It distinguishes from siblings like 'authorize-security-group-ingress' or 'revoke-security-group-egress' by focusing on modification rather than authorization/revocation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'update-security-group-rule-descriptions-egress/ingress' which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing security group rules), compare to sibling tools like 'update-security-group-rule-descriptions-egress/ingress' or 'list-security-group-rules', or specify scenarios (e.g., updating CIDR ranges vs. descriptions). The description is purely functional without contextual advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a non-destructive, idempotent write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this—it doesn't explain what happens if the instance is already running, potential costs, or error conditions. However, it doesn't contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words—it directly states the tool's purpose. It's appropriately front-loaded and efficient, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (starting cloud instances), annotations cover safety aspects, but the description lacks details on behavioral outcomes, error handling, or output format. With no output schema, the description should ideally hint at what's returned (e.g., success status or instance state), but it doesn't. It's minimally adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to infer usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with the 'region' parameter well-documented but 'Ec2Args' object lacking internal descriptions. The description mentions 'in a given region', which aligns with the schema but doesn't add meaningful details about parameter usage, such as the format of InstanceIds or when to use DryRun. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but not fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Start') and resource ('an EC2 instance') with regional context ('in a given region'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'launch-ec2-instance' or 'reboot-ec2-instance', but the verb 'Start' is specific enough for basic distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'launch-ec2-instance' (for creating new instances) or 'reboot-ec2-instance' (for restarting running instances). It also doesn't mention prerequisites such as needing a stopped instance or appropriate AWS permissions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which cover key behavioral traits. The description adds minimal context beyond this, such as the region scope, but doesn't detail consequences (e.g., data loss, billing implications) or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the essential purpose without redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no output schema and moderate schema coverage, the description is minimal. It covers the basic action but lacks details on outcomes, error handling, or integration with sibling tools, leaving gaps in contextual understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with 'region' and 'DryRun' documented but 'InstanceIds' lacking a description in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter details beyond implying region usage, so it partially compensates but leaves 'InstanceIds' semantics unclear. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the mixed coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('terminate') and resource ('EC2 instance'), with the region constraint adding specificity. It distinguishes from siblings like 'stop-ec2-instance' or 'delete-*' tools by specifying termination, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'stop-ec2-instance' or 'delete-*' tools for other resources. The description mentions the region but doesn't provide context about prerequisites, permissions, or typical workflows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover key behavioral traits (destructiveHint: true, readOnlyHint: false, etc.), so the description adds minimal value. It doesn't disclose additional context like potential downtime, rate limits, or auth requirements beyond what annotations imply. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words, clearly front-loading the core action and resource. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive mutation, 2 parameters with nested objects, no output schema), the description is minimal. Annotations provide safety context, but the description lacks details on behavior, outcomes, or error handling, making it adequate but with clear gaps for such a high-stakes operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, but the description adds no parameter details beyond implying 'region' and 'DB instance' as inputs. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails (e.g., which fields are modifiable) or compensate for the coverage gap, so it meets the baseline for moderate schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('RDS DB instance') with regional context ('in the given region'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create-db-instance' or 'delete-db-instance' beyond the verb, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create-db-instance' or 'delete-db-instance', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., existing DB instance) or exclusions. It's a basic statement without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide key hints: readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=false (non-destructive), idempotentHint=true (safe to retry), and openWorldHint=true (supports unknown parameters). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, such as specifying 'in the given region', but does not detail side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with nested parameters) and lack of output schema, the description is minimal. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, but the description does not address return values, error conditions, or advanced usage scenarios, leaving gaps for an agent to infer behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with detailed descriptions for nested parameters like 'AssignIpv6AddressOnCreation' but not for top-level ones like 'region'. The description mentions 'subnet ID' and 'region', aligning with the schema, but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('subnet attributes by subnet ID in the given region'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'update-vpc-attribute' or 'update-db-instance', which have similar update patterns but target different resources, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'create-subnet' for initial setup or 'list-subnets' for viewing. It also lacks prerequisites, like needing specific AWS permissions or network configurations, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide key behavioral hints: readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=false (non-destructive), idempotentHint=true (safe to retry), and openWorldHint=true (flexible inputs). The description adds that this updates specific VPC attributes by ID in a region, which provides operational context. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when only some attributes are specified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that packs essential information: action, resource, specific attributes, and key parameters. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. It's appropriately sized for a tool with clear parameters and good annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. Annotations cover safety profile (non-destructive, idempotent), and the description specifies what gets updated. However, it lacks information about return values, error cases, or side effects. Given the complexity of AWS VPC operations and the nested parameter structure, more context would be helpful for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (region parameter has description, VpcArgs object doesn't). The description mentions 'VPC ID' and 'region' but doesn't explain the nested structure of VpcArgs or that only VpcId is required while the three attribute objects are optional. It lists the three attribute names, which helps, but doesn't clarify that each requires a Value boolean sub-property. The description adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the schema coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update'), resource ('VPC attribute'), and specifies the three specific attributes that can be modified. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'update-subnet-attribute' by focusing on VPC-level attributes rather than subnet-level ones. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other VPC modification tools like 'update-vpc-endpoint'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing VPC), when this operation is appropriate versus creating a new VPC, or how it differs from other update operations in the sibling tool list. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide critical behavioral hints (destructive=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=true, readOnly=false). The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare. However, it doesn't contradict annotations - 'revoke' aligns with destructive operations, so no contradiction penalty.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise single sentence with zero wasted words. Front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place - 'revoke' (action), 'security group ingress' (resource), 'in the given region' (context).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive security operation with complex nested parameters (SecurityGroupArgs), no output schema, and only 50% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after revocation, error conditions, permissions required, or how to identify which rules to target. Annotations help but don't compensate for the minimal description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with 2 parameters total. The description mentions 'region' and implies 'SecurityGroupArgs' through context, but adds no meaningful semantic information beyond what the schema provides. It doesn't explain parameter relationships, required fields within SecurityGroupArgs, or how to specify which ingress rules to revoke.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('revoke') and resource ('security group ingress') with regional context. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'revoke-security-group-egress' by specifying 'ingress', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other security group operations like 'modify-security-group-rules' or 'delete-security-group'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'modify-security-group-rules' or 'delete-security-group'. The description mentions 'in the given region' but provides no context about prerequisites, dependencies, or typical use cases for revoking ingress rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide key hints: destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds minimal context beyond this, but it doesn't contradict annotations. It could enhance transparency by noting irreversible deletion or bucket emptiness requirements, but it's not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Delete an S3 bucket') with essential context ('in the given region'). There is zero waste, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with 2 parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations), the description is minimal. It covers the basic action but lacks details on outcomes, error conditions, or dependencies (e.g., bucket must be empty). Annotations help, but more context would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (only 'region' has a description, 'Bucket' does not). The description mentions 'region' and implies 'Bucket' through context, but doesn't add detailed semantics like bucket naming rules or region defaults beyond the schema. It partially compensates for low coverage but not fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('an S3 bucket') with regional context ('in the given region'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete-vpc' or 'delete-subnet', which also delete AWS resources, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'list-buckets' for checking existence or 'create-bucket' for creation. It lacks explicit when/when-not statements or prerequisites, leaving usage context implied at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description doesn't contradict annotations, which already indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the region parameter. However, for a destructive operation, it could better explain implications like irreversible deletion or dependency checks.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Delete a route table') and includes essential context ('in the given region'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature (destructiveHint=true), no output schema, and 50% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context, error handling, or output expectations. For a high-stakes deletion tool, more completeness would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with the 'region' parameter well-documented but 'RouteTableArgs' nested object lacking detailed descriptions. The description mentions 'region' but doesn't clarify parameter roles or interactions (e.g., that 'DryRun' validates permissions without execution). It adds some meaning by emphasizing region, but doesn't fully compensate for the schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a route table'), and specifies the region context ('in the given region'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'disassociate-route-table' by focusing on deletion rather than disassociation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other delete operations like 'delete-vpc' or 'delete-subnet' beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., route table must be disassociated first), consequences (e.g., impact on network routing), or when to choose deletion over modification. With siblings like 'disassociate-route-table' and 'replace-route-table-association', this gap is significant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide excellent behavioral context (readOnlyHint: true, openWorldHint: true, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false), so the bar is lower. The description adds value by specifying the regional scope constraint, which isn't covered by annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides useful operational context beyond the structured data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the essential information. There's zero wasted language - every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and scope. It's appropriately sized for a list operation with good annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the annotations provide excellent safety/behavioral context and the description adds regional scope, this is adequate for a read-only list operation. However, with no output schema and complex nested parameters (RouteTableArgs with filtering, pagination, permission checks), the description should ideally mention something about filtering capabilities or return format to be truly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with the 'region' parameter well-documented but the complex 'RouteTableArgs' object only partially described. The description mentions 'given region' which aligns with the 'region' parameter, but adds no meaningful context about the filtering, pagination, or permission-checking capabilities documented in the schema. The description doesn't compensate for the schema coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('route tables') with geographic scope ('in the given region'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other list tools on the server (like list-amis, list-buckets, etc.) beyond the resource type, missing explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like list-subnets or list-vpcs that might be used in related networking contexts, nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate scenarios for listing route tables specifically.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds context by specifying the target types (subnet, internet gateway, virtual private gateway), which isn't covered in annotations. It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or side effects, but annotations provide a solid baseline, and the description adds useful scope information without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and target types. There is no wasted verbiage, and it directly communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with nested objects) and lack of output schema, the description is minimal. Annotations provide behavioral hints, but the description doesn't cover return values, error conditions, or detailed usage context. It's adequate for basic understanding but lacks depth for a mutation tool in a cloud environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with parameters 'region' and 'RouteTableArgs' documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the 'AssociationId' or 'RouteTableId' in context. Since schema coverage is moderate, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate for gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('replace') and target ('route table association'), specifying it can be for a subnet, internet gateway, or virtual private gateway. It distinguishes from siblings like 'associate-route-table' and 'disassociate-route-table' by focusing on replacement rather than initial association or removal. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings in the text.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'associate-route-table' or 'disassociate-route-table'. The description lists target types but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![aws-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lokeswaran-aj/aws-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lokeswaran-aj/aws-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![aws-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lokeswaran-aj/aws-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lokeswaran-aj/aws-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/lokeswaran-aj/aws-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server