AWS MCP Server

by marcelobrake

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool is clearly distinguished by its AWS service and operation, with no overlap in purpose. The naming convention includes service and operation details, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool for a specific AWS resource or action without confusion.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent snake_case pattern with the structure 'aws_<service>_<operation>'. This predictable naming scheme enhances readability and allows agents to easily infer the tool's function and associated AWS service.
Tool Count2/5
With 208 tools, the count is excessive and overwhelming for an agent to navigate effectively. While AWS is a broad domain, this many tools likely includes redundant or overly granular operations that could be consolidated, making the toolset feel heavy and difficult to manage.
Completeness5/5
The toolset provides comprehensive coverage across numerous AWS services, including CRUD operations, monitoring, and management tasks. The inclusion of a generic 'aws_execute' tool ensures that any gaps in specific operations can be addressed, making the surface effectively complete for AWS interactions.
Average 3.2/5 across 208 of 208 tools scored. Lowest: 1.9/5.
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 BSD 3-Clause.
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

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet reveals nothing about read-only safety, pagination behavior, rate limiting, or whether results are cached. The agent cannot infer operational characteristics from this description alone.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While appropriately brief at three words, the single sentence adds minimal value and could easily accommodate usage guidelines or output hints without sacrificing clarity. It avoids wordiness but borders on under-specification.
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 zero annotations and no output schema, the description inadequately prepares the agent for tool invocation. It fails to describe the response format, pagination tokens, or what distinguishes a pipeline object, leaving critical gaps despite simple parameter schemas.
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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline score is 3. The description adds no semantic context beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., no examples of profile names or guidance on when to override regions).
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 CodePipeline pipelines' is a tautology that restates the tool name. While it confirms the resource type, it fails to distinguish from siblings like `aws_codepipeline_get_pipeline` (retrieves specific pipeline details) or `aws_codepipeline_list_pipeline_executions` (lists runs, not pipeline definitions).
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?
No guidance provided on when to use this listing tool versus the `get_pipeline` sibling for fetching specific pipeline details, or when pagination (`max_results`) is necessary. No mention of typical use cases or prerequisites.
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?
No annotations are provided, yet the description discloses almost no behavioral traits. It does not mention pagination behavior (despite max_results parameter implying it), return format, credential requirements beyond the schema, or the read-only nature of the operation.
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 brief, this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single sentence fails to earn its place by providing value beyond the tool name itself. Critical information about scope, pagination, and return values is absent.
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?
Without an output schema, the description should explain return values and pagination behavior. It also omits mention that zero parameters are required, which is important for a list/filter operation. Given the tool's purpose, the description fails to provide sufficient context for effective agent 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 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description implies the purpose of the max_results parameter (listing), but adds no semantic value regarding parameter relationships (e.g., region override behavior) or syntax details beyond what the schema already documents.
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 SageMaker notebook instances' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name (aws_sagemaker_list_notebook_instances). It fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like aws_sagemaker_list_endpoints or aws_sagemaker_list_training_jobs, which also list SageMaker 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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to list notebook instances vs. endpoints or training jobs). Does not mention that all parameters are optional, which is important context for a filtering list 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies read-only, it doesn't explicitly confirm safety, describe pagination behavior for large vault lists, explain rate limiting, or indicate whether deleted vaults are included in results.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence and appropriately brief, but underspecified rather than elegantly concise. Every word technically earns its place in terms of space used, but the sentence as a whole provides minimal value beyond the tool name itself.
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 of AWS Backup service and presence of multiple sibling backup tools, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a backup vault is, what information is returned, or how vaults relate to backup plans and recovery points. With no output schema, the description should compensate but doesn't.
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 100% for all three parameters (profile, region, max_results). The description adds no semantic information beyond the schema, but baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters. The description doesn't explain parameter relationships (e.g., that region is required if not in profile).
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 AWS Backup vaults' is a tautology that restates the snake_case tool name. It identifies the resource (AWS Backup vaults) but fails to distinguish from siblings like aws_backup_list_recovery_points_by_backup_vault or aws_backup_list_backup_jobs, which operate on different backup 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?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to list vaults vs listing recovery points within them). No mention of prerequisites, AWS authentication requirements, or that vaults are regional resources requiring the region parameter.
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?
No annotations provided, so the description must carry full disclosure burden. It fails to disclose what data is returned (key metadata, policy, grants, rotation status), required IAM permissions (kms:DescribeKey), or that this is a read-only operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (4 words), but constitutes under-specification rather than purposeful conciseness. It wastes no words, yet fails to front-load any actionable guidance or behavioral 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?
Without annotations or output schema, the description leaves critical gaps: it omits what key attributes are returned (key usage, deletion status, origin, etc.), security implications, and how to interpret results.
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 has 100% description coverage with clear documentation for profile, region, and key_id. The description adds no semantic clarification beyond the schema, but baseline 3 is warranted per rules for high schema coverage.
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 'Describe a KMS key' is tautological, simply converting the tool name aws_kms_describe_key into sentence form. While it identifies the resource (KMS key), it does not distinguish from sibling tools like aws_kms_list_keys or aws_kms_list_aliases, nor does it explain what 'describe' entails.
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 provided on when to use this vs list operations (aws_kms_list_keys) or when profile/region overrides are necessary. No mention of permission requirements or that the key_id can be an alias, ARN, or ID.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate whether this operation is read-only (though implied by 'describe'), what the return structure looks like (list of snapshots vs. single object), pagination behavior with max_results, or any rate limiting concerns. No mention of whether results are cached or real-time.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a terse 3-word sentence with zero redundancy. However, it suffers from under-specification rather than efficient conciseness—it lacks the informational density expected for a tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema. Every word earns its place, but there are too few words.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description should compensate with richer context about return values, authentication requirements, and service-specific behaviors. It provides none of these, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent attempting to understand the tool's full contract.
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 100% schema description coverage, the parameters are fully documented in the structured schema (profile, region, filters). The description adds no additional semantic information about parameter interactions or syntax, but the high schema coverage warrants the baseline score of 3.
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 'Describe MemoryDB snapshots' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with spaces added. While it identifies the target resource (MemoryDB snapshots), it fails to distinguish from similar sibling tools like aws_redshift_describe_cluster_snapshots or aws_rds_describe_db_snapshots, and provides no scope clarification (list vs. get single item).
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, nor does it note that all parameters are optional (allowing broad listing versus specific filtering). There is no mention of required IAM permissions, prerequisites, or relationships to other MemoryDB operations like cluster management.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It does not state this is read-only, idempotent, or safe; nor does it mention what data is returned, potential errors (e.g., endpoint not found), or AWS API rate limit implications.
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 brief, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. The single sentence wastes space by nearly restating the tool name without adding actionable context, failing the 'every sentence earns its place' criterion.
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 AWS SageMaker complexity and the absence of both annotations and output schema, the description should explain the returned data structure or key fields (e.g., EndpointStatus, EndpointConfigName). It provides none of this necessary 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 100%, so the baseline score applies. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema (e.g., no guidance on profile/region selection or endpoint_name format), but the schema adequately documents the parameters.
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 provides a clear verb ('Describe') and resource ('SageMaker endpoint'), but remains generic and fails to distinguish from the sibling 'aws_sagemaker_list_endpoints'. It does not clarify what 'describe' entails (e.g., returning configuration, status, or metadata).
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 provided on when to use this tool versus 'list_endpoints' or other SageMaker operations. No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned despite the required 'endpoint_name' parameter implying a specific resource selection pattern.
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?
No annotations are provided, yet the description fails to disclose expected return values (stream status, ARN, shards), required IAM permissions, or AWS API rate limits. The word 'Describe' implies a read-only operation but lacks explicit confirmation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While appropriately brief at four words, the description is under-specified given the absence of output schema and annotations. The brevity results in insufficient information rather than efficient communication.
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?
Lacking an output schema and annotations, the description must explain what stream details are returned; it fails to provide this critical context needed for an agent to understand the tool's utility.
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 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents all three parameters (profile, region, stream_name). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, meeting the baseline score for well-documented schemas.
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 ('Describe') and resource ('Kinesis stream'), but merely restates the tool name in natural language without elaborating on what information is returned or differentiating from sibling operations like list_streams or list_shards.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_streams to discover stream names), nor mentions that stream_name must be known beforehand.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It implies read-only access via 'describe' but does not confirm safety, disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, error conditions (e.g., invalid VPC IDs), or the structure/contents of returned data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief (4 words) and front-loaded. While not verbose, it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise—it fails to leverage the available space to add value beyond the function name.
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 zero annotations, no output schema, and the complexity of AWS VPC relationships, the description is inadequate. It should clarify this maps to AWS DescribeVpcs API, mention pagination for large result sets, and explain how it relates to the broader VPC tool family.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, establishing baseline of 3. The description does not mention parameters or add context beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., explaining region/profile interaction or vpc_ids filtering behavior).
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?
States the basic action (describe) and resource (VPCs) with scope (in the account), but is minimal and borderline tautological with the function name. Does not explain what 'describe' entails (list attributes, metadata, etc.).
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like aws_vpc_describe_subnets or aws_ec2_describe_instances. No mention of when to filter with vpc_ids parameter versus retrieving all VPCs.
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?
No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It fails to disclose that this is a read-only operation, that forecasts are projections based on historical data, or what format/time range limits apply to the returned forecast data.
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 efficient sentence with zero redundancy. However, given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, forecasting logic), it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.
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 5-parameter forecasting tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits critical context: forecast methodology, output data structure, pagination behavior for long forecasts, and AWS service-specific constraints.
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 has 100% description coverage (all 5 parameters documented including nested time_period object). Description adds no parameter-specific guidance, which warrants the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.
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?
States specific verb (Get) and resource (cost forecast) but offers minimal sibling differentiation from aws_ce_get_cost_and_usage despite being in the same Cost Explorer service family. Description is accurate but basic.
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 vs. the historical data tool (aws_ce_get_cost_and_usage), no mention of required IAM permissions for Cost Explorer, and no prerequisites for AWS credentials configuration.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only implies read-only behavior via 'Get'. It fails to disclose what specific status information is returned (e.g., IsLogging boolean, latest delivery times), error conditions, or AWS permission requirements.
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 efficient and front-loaded with the core action. However, extreme brevity contributes to informational gaps rather than clarity.
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?
Inadequate for a tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description omits critical context about return value structure, what 'logging status' specifically entails in AWS CloudTrail, and how this differs from the describe 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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, establishing baseline 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, merely mentioning 'CloudTrail trail' which aligns with the 'name' parameter. No elaboration on optional profile/region parameters.
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?
States specific verb (Get) and resource (logging status for a CloudTrail trail), but fails to distinguish from sibling aws_cloudtrail_describe_trails. The distinction between 'describing' a trail and getting its 'logging status' is subtle and unexplained.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like aws_cloudtrail_describe_trails or aws_cloudtrail_lookup_events. No mention of prerequisites, permissions, or typical usage patterns.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate this is read-only, omits pagination behavior (critical for AWS Describe* APIs), error conditions, or return value structure. 'Describe' implies read-only but explicit confirmation would help.
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?
Extremely brief at 4 words with no redundancy. However, given zero annotations and 4 optional parameters, the brevity leaves significant gaps in agent guidance that a longer description could fill.
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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and 4 optional filtering parameters, the description should disclose return structure, pagination limits, or service-specific constraints. It provides none of this behavioral 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 100% with all 4 parameters well-documented. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance (e.g., when to combine filters with db_cluster_identifier), establishing baseline 3 per scoring rules for high-coverage schemas.
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?
States the verb (Describe) and resource (DocumentDB clusters) clearly, decoding 'docdb' to 'DocumentDB'. However, it fails to distinguish from sibling aws_docdb_describe_db_instances (clusters vs instances) or aws_rds_describe_db_clusters (RDS vs DocumentDB), leaving ambiguity for agents selecting between similar tools.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when to use db_cluster_identifier versus filters, or any prerequisites. The description is purely declarative with no operational context.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Describe' implies read-only access, the description fails to specify what data is returned (configuration, status, endpoints), whether pagination applies, or required IAM permissions for AWS DocumentDB.
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 extremely brief at only 3 words, avoiding verbosity. However, this brevity borders on under-specification. The single sentence is front-loaded with the action verb, earning a passing score for structure despite its minimalism.
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 4 parameters with rich AWS API capabilities, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks critical context such as the fact that all parameters are optional, what the response contains, or that this specifically targets DocumentDB instances (compatible with MongoDB) rather than RDS instances.
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 100%, with clear descriptions for profile, region, db_instance_identifier, and filters in the JSON schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema itself, warranting the baseline score.
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 verb ('Describe') and resource ('DocumentDB instances'), providing basic clarity. However, it fails to distinguish from critical siblings like 'aws_docdb_describe_db_clusters' (clusters vs instances) or 'aws_rds_describe_db_instances' (RDS vs DocumentDB), which is essential given the 100+ AWS tools available.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the cluster variant or RDS equivalent. Given that all 4 parameters are optional (0 required), the description should explicitly state that omitting filters returns all instances, but it does not.
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?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose read-only nature, AWS API rate limits, pagination behavior, or required IAM permissions (ecr:DescribeRepositories). The agent must infer safety from the 'describe' verb alone.
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?
Extremely brief at only four words with no redundancy. However, the brevity leaves significant gaps in necessary context—every word earns its place, but more words were 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 an AWS API tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It omits what repository attributes are returned, how pagination works with max_results, and does not reference the AWS profile/region context established by other tools in the suite.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage (profile, region, repository_names, max_results), so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no parameter syntax, formatting details, or behavior of optional filters (e.g., that empty repository_names returns all repositories). Baseline 3 warranted.
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?
States the resource (ECR repositories) and actions (list and describe) clearly, but lacks specificity about what 'describe' entails (e.g., repository URIs, policies, scan status) and does not distinguish from sibling tools like aws_ecr_describe_images or aws_ecr_list_images.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., aws_ecr_list_images for image listings) or when to filter by repository_names versus retrieving all repositories. No prerequisites or permissions mentioned.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It fails to disclose read-only nature, error behavior when tasks don't exist, rate limiting characteristics, or that this requires existing task ARNs (not just names).
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 brief and front-loaded with the action. No redundant or wasted text, though extreme brevity leaves functionality under-specified.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should describe what 'detailed information' means (container status, task definition, networking, etc.). It also omits the critical workflow step of obtaining task ARNs from list_tasks 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline applies. While the schema clearly documents all four parameters (profile, region, cluster, tasks), the description adds no contextual meaning about the relationship between cluster and tasks parameters or AWS credential handling.
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 basic action (Get detailed information) and resource (ECS tasks), but fails to distinguish from sibling tool aws_ecs_list_tasks. In AWS ECS, 'list' returns ARNs while 'describe' requires ARNs to return details—a crucial distinction missing here.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus aws_ecs_list_tasks or aws_ecs_describe_services. Does not mention that task ARNs must be obtained from list_tasks first, nor prerequisites like cluster access permissions.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden but only implies read-only behavior via the word 'List'. It omits critical behavioral details: whether results are paginated, what fields are returned for each crawler, error conditions, or whether this lists all crawlers or requires filters.
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 single sentence is appropriately brief and front-loaded with the action verb. However, it borders on under-specification rather than elegant conciseness, as it omits necessary contextual clues that would help an agent utilize the tool effectively.
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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should disclose what data is returned (crawler names, ARNs, states, schedules) and operational constraints. It provides insufficient context for an AI agent to understand the full tool capability or interpret results.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for profile, region, and max_results. The tool description adds no additional parameter context (e.g., that max_results controls pagination), warranting the baseline score of 3 when schema documentation is comprehensive.
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 basic verb ('List') and resource ('Glue crawlers'), providing minimal viable clarity. However, it fails to distinguish from siblings like 'aws_glue_get_jobs' or clarify whether it returns crawler configurations versus runs, leaving scope ambiguous.
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 provided on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., 'aws_glue_get_databases' for metadata exploration), prerequisites for the profile/region parameters, or pagination behavior when using max_results.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention pagination behavior, rate limits, authorization requirements beyond the profile parameter, or what the response structure contains.
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 four-word description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with no wasted text, though it borders on being overly terse given the lack of supporting annotations or output schema.
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 absence of annotations, output schema, and the minimal description, critical information is missing regarding return values, pagination, and error conditions necessary for an agent to effectively use this 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?
With 100% schema description coverage for both parameters (profile and region), the schema already documents their purpose. The description adds no additional semantic context about when to override regions or select profiles, warranting the baseline score for high-coverage schemas.
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?
States the basic action (List) and resource (Kinesis data streams) but lacks specificity about what is returned (stream names, ARNs, or full objects) and does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'aws_kinesis_describe_stream' which likely retrieves detailed information about a specific stream.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'aws_kinesis_describe_stream' or 'aws_kinesis_list_shards', nor does it mention prerequisites such as AWS permissions or that this is typically a first step before describing specific streams.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it fails to mention whether this is read-only, if results are paginated, rate limiting considerations, or what data structure is returned. It does not disclose if the key_id filter performs exact or partial matching.
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 extremely brief at three words, containing no redundancy or filler. While efficient, this brevity constitutes under-specification rather than optimal conciseness, as no additional context is provided beyond the tool name itself.
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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description should explain the return format and alias structure. It currently provides no information about what fields are returned (alias ARN, alias name, target key ID) or how to handle large result sets.
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 100% schema description coverage, the input schema adequately documents all three parameters (profile, region, key_id). The description adds no additional parameter context, semantics, or usage examples, warranting the baseline score of 3 for high-coverage schemas.
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 basic action ('List') and resource ('KMS key aliases'), but offers no scope constraints, filtering behavior details, or distinction from sibling tools like aws_kms_list_keys or aws_kms_describe_key. It identifies the operation without explaining the KMS alias concept or when to prefer this over listing raw keys.
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 (e.g., aws_kms_list_keys), nor does it mention prerequisites such as AWS credentials or required IAM permissions for KMS. There are no exclusions or conditional usage notes.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It does not indicate read-only safety, pagination behavior (despite max_results parameter), default result limits, or what constitutes a valid cluster name format.
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?
Extremely concise at four words with no redundancy. However, the brevity borders on under-specification given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, AWS service interaction), leaving little structural context for the agent.
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?
Inadequate for a 4-parameter AWS service tool lacking both annotations and output schema. The description omits return value structure, authentication requirements, and error conditions that the agent needs to invoke 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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage with clear definitions for profile, region, cluster_name, and max_results. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, but the high schema coverage meets the baseline expectation.
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 verb (Describe) and resource (MemoryDB for Redis clusters), identifying the specific AWS service. However, it lacks scope clarification—whether it retrieves one cluster or many, or what specific attributes are returned—leaving ambiguity given the optional cluster_name parameter.
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 versus the sibling tool aws_memorydb_describe_snapshots, or when to apply filtering via cluster_name versus retrieving all clusters. No prerequisites (AWS credentials, permissions) are mentioned.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not indicate that this is a read-only operation, mention pagination behavior (how max_results interacts with AWS's native pagination), or describe the return format since no output schema 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?
The description is extremely concise at seven words. While efficient and front-loaded, it errs on the side of under-specification given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations). It wastes no words but leaves critical context unstated.
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?
Despite having complete input schema coverage, the description is inadequate for a tool with five parameters and no annotations or output schema. It omits what data is returned (execution ARNs, names, statuses, timestamps?), pagination tokens, and error conditions. For an AWS list operation, this minimal description leaves significant 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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the structured schema already documents all five parameters including the enum values for status_filter and the default for max_results. The description adds no semantic information beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline score for high-coverage schemas.
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 a clear verb ('List') and resource ('executions for a Step Functions state machine'), but it fails to distinguish from sibling tools like aws_sfn_describe_execution (which retrieves a specific execution by ARN) or aws_sfn_list_state_machines (which lists state machines, not executions). It does not clarify that this tool requires a state_machine_arn to scope the query.
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 does not mention the prerequisite workflow (typically obtaining state_machine_arn from aws_sfn_list_state_machines first) or when to use aws_sfn_describe_execution for detailed single-execution lookup instead.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it provides no information on pagination (Marker/NextToken), rate limiting, required IAM permissions (kms:ListKeys), or whether disabled keys are included. Does not contradict annotations, but fails to disclose essential AWS API behaviors.
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 with no fluff, appropriately front-loaded. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, the extreme brevity contributes to under-specification rather than efficient communication.
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 simple enumeration tool with a flat input schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context given zero annotations. Should disclose pagination behavior and whether this returns all keys or requires filtering.
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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for 'profile' and 'region'. The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but meets the baseline for high-coverage schemas.
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?
States the basic action (List KMS keys) and scope (in the account) with a specific verb, but lacks differentiation from sibling `aws_kms_describe_key` (which retrieves details of a specific key) and `aws_kms_list_aliases`. Does not clarify what attributes of the keys are returned.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like `aws_kms_describe_key` for getting detailed key metadata, or `aws_kms_list_aliases` for viewing friendly names. No mention of pagination behavior or permission requirements.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. While 'in detail' hints at comprehensive return data, it omits read-only nature, error behavior (e.g., invalid ARN), rate limiting, or what specific certificate details are returned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is appropriately sized and not wasteful, but front-loading is minimal—it states the basic operation without structuring information about prerequisites, parameters, or output.
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?
No output schema exists, yet description fails to indicate what 'in detail' encompasses (e.g., domain validation status, certificate chain, renewal eligibility). Should specify return value structure for a 'describe' 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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all three parameters (profile, region, certificate_arn). Description adds no param-specific context, but baseline 3 applies for high 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?
Clear verb 'Describe' and resource 'ACM certificate' with scope indicator 'in detail'. Implicitly distinguishes from sibling aws_acm_list_certificates (single detail vs. enumeration) though does not make this 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 on when to use this versus the list operation, nor mention that certificate_arn (required) must typically be obtained from aws_acm_list_certificates first. No prerequisites or state requirements mentioned.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to clarify read-only safety, pagination behavior (despite the max_results parameter), return format, or error conditions. The agent cannot determine if this is a simple list call or requires specific setup.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While efficient at three words without verbosity, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. Given the tool's complexity (AWS service integration, 3 optional parameters, no output schema), the extreme brevity fails to provide necessary context, making it insufficiently informative.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, critical contextual gaps remain. The agent cannot determine what workgroup attributes are returned, how pagination works, or what permissions are required. For an AWS integration tool, this is inadequate.
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 100%, providing detailed descriptions for profile, region, and max_results. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema (it doesn't explain that max_results limits pagination or how profile names map to AWS config files), warranting the baseline score of 3.
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?
States a clear verb ('List') and resource ('Athena workgroups'), so the purpose is immediately comprehensible. However, it lacks scope details (e.g., whether it returns all workgroups or supports pagination) and does not differentiate from other Athena listing tools like aws_athena_list_databases.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like AWS credentials or IAM permissions required to view workgroups. The description offers zero usage context beyond the action itself.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. 'List' implies read-only behavior but doesn't confirm non-destructive nature, pagination behavior (despite max_results parameter), or required IAM permissions. No disclosure of soft-delete behavior regarding include_deleted parameter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely terse at three words. While efficient per-word, the brevity is inappropriate for the complexity (4 parameters, AWS service context, multiple siblings). Front-loaded but insufficient for confident agent invocation.
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?
Lacks output schema and description fails to compensate by describing return values or plan structure. Omits relationship context between backup plans, jobs, and vaults. Doesn't clarify pagination behavior despite max_results implying paginated results.
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 100%, providing full parameter documentation (profile, region, include_deleted, max_results). Description adds no parameter-specific guidance, but baseline 3 is appropriate given schema completeness.
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?
Clear verb+resource pairing (List + AWS Backup plans). Expands 'backup_plans' from the tool name to clarify this refers to the AWS Backup service specifically. However, lacks scope clarification (e.g., account-wide vs filtered) and relies on the tool name for 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?
No when-to-use guidance provided. Missing explicit differentiation from related sibling tools like aws_backup_list_backup_jobs, aws_backup_list_backup_vaults, or aws_backup_list_recovery_points_by_backup_vault. Agent must infer from parameter names alone.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. Fails to mention this is read-only, what specific trail attributes are returned, pagination behavior, or AWS rate limit considerations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is front-loaded and contains no waste, but is inappropriately brief for a 4-parameter AWS API tool. Lacks necessary elaboration on behavior and return values.
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?
Inadequate for tool complexity. No output schema exists, yet description fails to explain what 'describe' encompasses (configuration details, ARN, S3 bucket destination), default behavior when trail_name_list is omitted, or multi-region considerations.
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 100%, providing detailed descriptions for all 4 parameters including optionality behavior. Description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond schema, warranting 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?
States specific verb (describe) and resource (CloudTrail trails) clearly. However, lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tool `aws_cloudtrail_get_trail_status` which could be confused as another descriptive operation.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use versus `lookup_events` or `get_trail_status`, nor does it mention that all parameters are optional and the tool returns all trails by default.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. While 'List' implies read-only behavior, the description fails to mention critical AWS API behaviors such as pagination (MaxResults/NextToken), API rate limiting, or the structure/format of returned target group data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single-sentence description is front-loaded with the core action but is excessively terse for a 5-parameter AWS operation with no output schema. While there is no wasted text, the extreme brevity omits necessary behavioral context that would make it genuinely useful.
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 has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to document what data is returned (target group ARNs, names, health check settings, etc.), pagination behavior, or AWS-specific constraints, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to operate 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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'filtered by load balancer' which maps to the load_balancer_arn parameter, but it fails to add semantic context for the other three filter parameters (target_group_arns, names) or explain parameter interactions (e.g., that all filters are optional and combinable).
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 (target groups) and mentions the optional filter by load balancer. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling 'aws_elbv2_describe_target_health', which retrieves health status of targets rather than listing the target groups themselves.
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?
Provides minimal guidance with 'optionally filtered by load balancer', hinting at a use case (finding target groups for a specific LB). However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or clear differentiation from related ELBv2 siblings like describe_target_health or describe_listeners.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to mention mutation safety, pagination limits, return format (queue URLs vs ARNs), or required IAM permissions. The single sentence provides only the basic operation type without operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of a single efficient sentence that front-loads the primary action. However, given the tool's operational complexity (AWS service interaction with no output schema), the extreme brevity leaves significant informational gaps rather than demonstrating purposeful restraint.
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?
Lacking both an output schema and annotations, the description should explain what data is returned (queue URLs, ARNs, or metadata) and operational constraints like pagination. The minimal one-sentence description leaves critical gaps in the agent's understanding of the tool's complete 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, adequately documenting all three parameters without requiring description supplementation. The description mentions the 'optional name prefix filter' which aligns with the queue_name_prefix parameter but adds no semantic detail beyond the schema descriptions.
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 identifies the action ('List') and resource ('SQS queues') and mentions the filtering capability. However, it does not distinguish this list operation from the sibling aws_sqs_get_queue_attributes or indicate result scope (paginated vs complete).
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 mentions the 'optional name prefix filter' which hints at one usage pattern, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus other SQS operations. There is no mention of pagination behavior, permission requirements, or prerequisites like AWS credentials.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions status filtering, it fails to disclose read-only safety (critical for AWS tools), pagination behavior, result limits, or whether the operation is expensive/long-running. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 front-loads the action. It is appropriately compact, though given the lack of annotations and output schema, it could be expanded to include behavioral notes without violating conciseness principles.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the minimum viable context for a 3-parameter list operation. However, it lacks pagination details, distinction from the describe sibling, and confirmation that this is a safe read-only operation, which would be necessary for a complete specification.
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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, mentioning 'optionally filtered by status' which aligns with the certificate_statuses parameter, but does not add syntax guidance or examples for the profile/region parameters 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 specific verb (List) and resource (ACM certificates) with scope (account/region). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'aws_acm_describe_certificate' (which retrieves details of a specific certificate vs. listing multiple).
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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'describe_certificate' tool, nor are prerequisites like AWS credentials or IAM permissions mentioned. The filtering capability is implied by 'optionally filtered' but lacks context on when filtering is necessary.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only implies read-only access via the word 'List'. It fails to mention pagination behavior (despite the 'limit' parameter suggesting it), rate limiting, required IAM permissions, or what data structure is returned.
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 extremely concise at only 5 words, with the action verb front-loaded. While efficient, it may be excessively terse given the complete absence of annotations and output schema, leaving significant documentation gaps.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about the operation's behavior, return values, or pagination patterns (common in AWS APIs). The current single-sentence description is insufficient for a complete understanding of the tool's capabilities and output.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (profile, region, limit), establishing a baseline score of 3. The description itself adds no semantic context about the parameters, such as noting that 'limit' controls pagination or that all parameters are optional.
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 provides a specific verb (List) and resource (API Gateway REST APIs), and the '(v1)' notation helps distinguish this tool from the sibling 'aws_apigatewayv2_get_apis'. However, it does not explicitly clarify the difference between REST APIs (v1) and HTTP APIs (v2), leaving some ambiguity for users unfamiliar with AWS API Gateway versioning.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus its sibling 'aws_apigatewayv2_get_apis' or other API Gateway exploration tools like 'aws_apigateway_get_resources'. There are no prerequisites, conditions, or alternative recommendations provided.
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?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. While 'List' implies read-only, it fails to disclose permissions required, error behaviors (e.g., invalid rest_api_id), pagination limits, or whether the operation is safe/non-destructive.
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 front-loaded with the action verb 'List'. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy. However, given the complete absence of annotations and output schema, the brevity may be overly aggressive.
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?
With 100% input schema coverage and simple string parameters, the description is minimally sufficient for invocation. However, given no annotations and no output schema, it lacks completeness regarding return value structure and runtime behaviors expected for AWS API 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?
Input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for profile, region, and rest_api_id. The description adds no semantic details beyond the schema, but the baseline for high-coverage schemas is 3.
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?
Clear verb 'List' and resource 'deployment stages' with scope 'for a REST API'. The mention of 'REST API' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling aws_apigatewayv2_get_stages (which handles HTTP/WebSocket APIs), though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling.
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, nor does it mention the prerequisite of obtaining rest_api_id from aws_apigateway_get_rest_apis first. Lacks 'when-not' or prerequisite information.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description omits pagination behavior (despite the presence of max_results), rate limiting, authentication requirements, or what the return structure contains.
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 single sentence is front-loaded with the verb and wastes no words. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is arguably too terse rather than appropriately concise.
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 zero annotations and no output schema, the description should explain behavioral details or return values. As written, the 9-word description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand pagination, limits, or output structure.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (profile, region, max_results). The description adds no additional parameter context (e.g., that max_results is a string representation of a number), so it meets the baseline score for high-coverage schemas.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('API Gateway v2 APIs'), and the parenthetical '(HTTP and WebSocket)' implicitly distinguishes this from the v1 REST API sibling tool (aws_apigateway_get_rest_apis). However, it does not explicitly clarify when to prefer this over the v1 variant.
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 'aws_apigateway_get_rest_apis' or 'aws_apigatewayv2_get_routes'. There are no 'when-to-use' or exclusion criteria stated.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'List' implies a read-only operation, but there is no information about return format, pagination behavior, rate limits, or required IAM permissions. Significant gaps remain.
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 extremely concise at 9 words, with the action verb front-loaded. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant boilerplate. However, given the complete lack of annotations and output schema, the extreme brevity leaves meaningful gaps that could have been addressed with one additional sentence.
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 simple list operation with full input schema coverage, the description is minimally viable. However, without an output schema or annotations, the failure to describe what constitutes a 'stage' or what the operation returns leaves contextual gaps for the 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage (profile, region, api_id), establishing a baseline score of 3. The description adds no additional semantic context about the parameters (e.g., format of api_id, precedence of region overrides), relying entirely on 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('stages'), and clarifies the scope as 'HTTP/WebSocket API (v2)', which distinguishes this tool from the sibling aws_apigateway_get_stages (presumably for REST APIs). However, it could more explicitly contrast with the v1 variant.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (like needing a valid API ID), or when it might fail. The only implied constraint is the API type (HTTP/WebSocket v2) mentioned in the description.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states the basic action. It does not explain pagination behavior (despite max_results parameter), the default catalog behavior, whether this is a read-only operation, or what the response structure looks like.
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?
Extremely concise at 7 words. The single sentence earns its place by stating the core function directly, though the brevity contributes to gaps in behavioral and contextual information. No filler 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?
Adequate for a simple listing operation with well-documented parameters, but lacks explanation of the Athena/Glue Data Catalog relationship, pagination behavior, and return value structure. Given the tool's simplicity and 100% schema coverage, it meets minimum viability but has clear expansion opportunities.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage (profile, region, catalog_name, max_results all documented). The description does not add semantic meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline score of 3 applies since the schema comprehensively documents parameter purposes.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') with clear resource ('databases') and scope ('Athena data catalog'). However, it fails to distinguish from sibling tool 'aws_glue_get_databases' (which also lists databases), missing the important context that Athena queries the Glue Data Catalog and when to prefer one over the other.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'aws_glue_get_databases', or when the optional parameters (profile, region) should be specified. No mention of prerequisites like AWS credentials or IAM permissions needed.
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?
No annotations provided, yet description discloses no behavioral traits beyond the operation type. Missing: what metadata fields are returned (name, columns, partitions?), read-only safety confirmation, error behavior for invalid database_name, or pagination token handling.
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 with no redundancy. However, for a 5-parameter AWS integration tool with no output schema, this brevity leaves critical gaps rather than being optimally concise.
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?
Inadequate for complexity level. No output schema exists, yet description doesn't hint at return structure. Lacks ecosystem context (Athena vs Glue catalog) and prerequisite relationships (requires valid database_name likely obtained via aws_athena_list_databases).
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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all 5 parameters including profile, region, and catalog_name. The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but none are needed given complete 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?
States specific verb (List) and resource (tables in Athena database) clearly. However, it undersells compared to the tool name which includes 'metadata', and fails to distinguish from sibling aws_glue_get_tables which accesses the same underlying Glue Data Catalog.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this versus aws_glue_get_tables or aws_athena_list_databases (likely prerequisite). No mention of pagination behavior despite max_results parameter implying result sets may be large.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies read-only behavior, the description does not explicitly confirm safety, explain pagination behavior, or describe the output format. It fails to mention that all parameters are optional or how the filtering works.
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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action verb. However, it may be overly terse given the lack of annotations and output schema.
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 100% schema coverage and a simple read-only operation, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps. It does not explain the relationship between launch configurations and auto scaling groups in depth, nor does it clarify the pagination model or authentication requirements typical of AWS 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'launch configurations' generally but does not add semantic meaning to specific parameters (e.g., explaining that launch_configuration_names filters to specific configs, or that max_records controls pagination). It does not compensate beyond what the schema already 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('launch configurations'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'aws_autoscaling_describe_auto_scaling_groups' by clearly targeting launch configurations rather than the groups themselves. The phrase 'used by Auto Scaling Groups' adds useful relational 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, no prerequisites (e.g., needing valid AWS credentials), and no information about what happens if called without filters (returns all vs requires specific names).
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description does not confirm this is safe, mention pagination behavior for large result sets, disclose AWS API rate limiting, or describe the return structure (e.g., whether it returns full policy documents or just names).
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 of seven words with no redundancy or filler. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, this extreme brevity results in under-specification rather than optimal conciseness, as critical behavioral context is omitted.
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?
With 100% schema coverage, the parameter contract is well-defined. However, for an AWS describe operation with five optional filters and no output schema or annotations, the description lacks necessary context about the operation's read-only nature, pagination, and what data is returned, making it minimally viable but clearly 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting all five optional parameters (profile, region, auto_scaling_group_name, policy_names, policy_types) including enums for policy_types. The description mentions 'scaling policies' and 'Auto Scaling Groups' which loosely maps to the filtering capability, but adds no syntax details or usage examples beyond what the schema already 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 states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('scaling policies') with context ('for Auto Scaling Groups'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'aws_autoscaling_describe_auto_scaling_groups' or 'aws_autoscaling_describe_scaling_activities', leaving the agent to infer based on resource names alone.
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 'describe_scaling_activities' (which returns scaling history) or 'describe_auto_scaling_groups' (which returns group configuration). There are no prerequisites, warnings, or conditional usage hints provided.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure but fails to mention that this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior (despite having 'max_results'), required IAM permissions, or what the return values contain. The agent gets no behavioral hints beyond the basic operation name.
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 single sentence is front-loaded with the operation and resource, contains no redundancy or filler, and efficiently communicates the core purpose. However, extreme brevity limits the information conveyed, preventing a score of 5.
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?
The description covers the basic operation adequately given the simple 5-parameter schema with full coverage, but lacks completeness regarding usage context, safety characteristics, and output format that would be expected given the absence of annotations and output 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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting all 5 parameters clearly. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema (merely mentioning 'backup vault' which corresponds to the required parameter), so it meets the baseline of 3 for high-coverage schemas.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('recovery points'/'backups') and scope ('stored in a backup vault'). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'aws_backup_list_backup_vaults' (which lists vaults) by specifying it lists contents *within* a vault, 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 'aws_backup_list_backup_jobs' or 'aws_backup_list_backup_plans', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing to know the vault name (which relates to the sibling 'aws_backup_list_backup_vaults').
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information beyond the implied read-only nature of 'Get'. It fails to specify the return format (JSON vs YAML string), potential error states for non-existent stacks, rate limiting considerations, or whether the operation incurs AWS API costs.
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 single-sentence description efficiently conveys the core purpose without redundant words or filler content, placing the essential action and resource at the beginning. However, its extreme brevity borders on under-specification given the complete absence of supplementary metadata.
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?
Considering the tool lacks annotations and output schema, the description should disclose the return value format, authentication context, or behavioral constraints regarding the `Original` vs `Processed` template stages. As provided, it leaves significant operational gaps for an AWS API tool with credential override parameters.
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?
While the phrase 'for a stack' implicitly references the required `stack_name` parameter, the description adds no semantic context for the optional `profile`, `region`, or `template_stage` parameters. Given 100% schema description coverage where all parameters are already well-documented, the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the target resource as 'CloudFormation template body', clearly indicating it retrieves the template definition for a stack. While it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like `aws_cfn_describe_stacks`, the specificity of 'template body' inherently distinguishes it from operations that return stack metadata or resource lists.
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 `aws_cfn_describe_stacks`, nor does it mention prerequisites like stack existence requirements or necessary IAM permissions. There is no discussion of when-not-to-use, failure modes, or explicit comparison to the four sibling CloudFormation tools.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that this is a read-only operation, does not disclose pagination behavior (AWS ListStackResources is paginated), and does not describe what data is returned (resource types, logical/physical IDs, status) despite lacking an output schema.
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 extremely concise at seven words. It efficiently front-loads the core action. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, it is arguably underspecified rather than appropriately lean—a single additional sentence about return values or pagination would improve completeness without sacrificing clarity.
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 straightforward list operation with three well-documented parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or output schema, the absence of information about response structure, pagination tokens, or AWS credential requirements leaves notable gaps in contextual 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage with clear examples for profile and region. The description adds no additional semantic context about the parameters, but with complete schema documentation, this meets the baseline expectation. No credit is awarded since the schema already fully documents the three parameters.
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 (resources in a CloudFormation stack). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling `aws_cfn_list_stacks` by specifying 'resources in' rather than listing the stacks themselves. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from `aws_cfn_describe_stacks` which describes stack properties rather than enumerating contained 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this versus `aws_cfn_describe_stacks` or `aws_cfn_describe_stack_events`. The description does not mention when profile/region overrides are necessary or what permissions are required. There are no alternatives or prerequisites mentioned despite having relevant sibling tools.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description fails to disclose pagination behavior, what data is returned (stack IDs, names, statuses), rate limiting, or whether it returns deleted stacks versus active ones.
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 single sentence is efficiently structured with no filler words. It front-loads the core action and resource. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, it borders on underspecification rather than optimal conciseness.
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?
While the description covers the primary operation and key parameter, it leaves gaps given the complexity: no mention of the read-only nature (critical without annotations), no output value description (necessary without output schema), and no pagination guidance for AWS API limits.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions the 'optional status filter' which maps to the `stack_status_filter` parameter, but adds no semantic depth beyond the schema's enum values (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'active' means in the default context or provide usage examples).
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 provides a clear verb (List) and resource (CloudFormation stacks) and mentions the optional status filter capability. While it implies overview/summary retrieval ('List' vs siblings using 'Describe'), it could more explicitly distinguish from `aws_cfn_describe_stacks` which retrieves detailed stack information.
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 sibling alternatives like `aws_cfn_describe_stacks` or `aws_cfn_list_stack_resources`. It does not indicate typical workflows, prerequisites (e.g., AWS credentials), or when to apply the status filter.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. While 'Get' implies read-only, the description does not confirm idempotency or safety, disclose error conditions (e.g., invalid distribution ID), or describe the return structure despite no output schema being present.
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 of 7 words is efficient and front-loaded with the operative verb. No redundant content present, though extreme brevity contributes to gaps in behavioral and contextual disclosure.
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 AWS CloudFront complexity, lack of annotations, and absence of output schema, the description is insufficient. While it notes 'full configuration details', it fails to hint at key returned data (origins, cache behaviors, SSL settings) or AWS-specific behavioral constraints expected for this retrieval 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 100%, establishing baseline 3. The description does not add parameter-specific guidance (e.g., explaining that distribution_id typically comes from list_distributions), but no additional compensation is required given complete 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?
Description uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'CloudFront distribution'. The phrase 'full configuration details' implicitly distinguishes from sibling aws_cloudfront_list_distributions by implying detailed single-resource retrieval versus listing, though explicit sibling contrast is absent.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention that aws_cloudfront_list_distributions should be used first to obtain the distribution_id, or specify scenarios requiring full configuration versus summary data.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral burden. It mentions 'recent' but fails to define what constitutes recent (last N builds? time window?) or disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or that this is a read-only operation.
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 of 7 words with zero redundancy. Front-loaded with the action but slightly too terse given the lack of annotations and output schema—could accommodate one more clause about pagination or output format without losing clarity.
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?
Adequate for a listing operation with complete input schema, but gaps remain: it doesn't clarify what 'recent' means (AWS API typically returns 100 most recent), doesn't mention the output format (array of ARNs or IDs?), and omits pagination despite this being a common AWS pattern.
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 100% schema description coverage across 4 parameters, the schema adequately documents each field. The description implies project_name via 'for a CodeBuild project' and hints at sort_order via 'recent', but adds no syntax or constraint details beyond the schema baseline.
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 specifies the verb (List), resource (build IDs), and scope (for a CodeBuild project), clearly distinguishing from siblings like aws_codebuild_batch_get_builds (which gets full build details) and aws_codebuild_list_projects (which lists projects). However, it doesn't explicitly name siblings for 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?
No guidance provided on when to use this versus batch_get_builds or list_projects. No mention of prerequisites like needing the project to exist first, or typical use cases (e.g., monitoring recent builds).
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. While 'List' implies read-only, description omits critical AWS-specific behaviors: pagination handling, rate limiting, whether results are cached, or exact format of returned application names.
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?
Extremely efficient at two sentences (effectively one clause). No冗余 words. However, extreme brevity borders on under-specification given the lack of behavioral context.
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?
Adequate for a simple list operation with well-documented parameters, but lacks output format description and AWS-specific operational details (e.g., pagination tokens) that would be necessary for robust agent 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 100% for both profile and region parameters. Description does not add parameter semantics beyond schema, which is acceptable given the baseline for high-coverage schemas.
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?
States specific verb (List) and resource (CodeDeploy application names). Differentiates from sibling tools like aws_codedeploy_list_deployment_groups and aws_codedeploy_list_deployments by specifying 'applications' as the target 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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as aws_codedeploy_list_deployment_groups or when filtering/retrieval via other CodeDeploy tools would be more appropriate.
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?
No annotations are provided, yet the description fails to disclose that this is a read-only operation, whether results are paginated (typical for AWS List APIs), or what occurs if the application_name does not exist. The agent has no safety signals beyond the verb 'List'.
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 with no redundant text or filler. The action verb is front-loaded. However, the extreme brevity leaves significant gaps in behavioral and contextual information that should be included for an AWS API tool.
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?
No output schema exists, yet the description fails to indicate what data is returned (deployment group names, ARNs, etc.). Missing pagination behavior disclosure common to AWS list operations. Sibling tools exist that perform similar functions, but no hierarchical relationship is explained.
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 100%, documenting profile, region, and application_name. The description mentions 'for a CodeDeploy application' which aligns with the application_name parameter but does not add semantic meaning, constraints, or format details beyond what the schema already 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?
States clear verb 'List' with specific resource 'deployment groups' scoped to a CodeDeploy application. Differentiates from siblings like list_applications and list_deployments by specifying the correct AWS resource type (deployment groups vs applications/deployments).
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_applications or get_deployment. Does not clarify that an existing application_name is required (from list_applications) before invoking this tool.
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?
No annotations are provided, yet the description fails to disclose behavioral traits: it doesn't state this is read-only/safe, doesn't mention AWS API pagination behavior (critical for list operations), and doesn't describe what data is returned (deployment IDs vs full objects) since no output schema 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 of 10 words is front-loaded with the core action. While efficient and free of redundancy, it is arguably too terse given the lack of annotations and output schema—every word earns its place but leaves significant gaps.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries a heavy burden that it fails to meet. For a 5-parameter AWS list operation, it should mention pagination, return value structure (e.g., 'returns deployment IDs'), or permission requirements. As written, it covers only the basic filtering capability.
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 100%, establishing baseline 3. The description mentions filtering by 'application' and 'status' which maps to parameters, but adds no semantic clarification beyond the schema (e.g., doesn't explain that 'profile' is for AWS credential selection or that all filters are optional).
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?
States specific verb 'List' and resource 'CodeDeploy deployments' clearly. Mentions 'filtered by application and status' which hints at scope, but fails to explicitly distinguish from sibling 'aws_codedeploy_get_deployment' (singular vs plural) or clarify that this returns a list/IDs rather than detailed objects.
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?
Provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'aws_codedeploy_get_deployment'. While 'optionally filtered' implies parameters are not required, it lacks prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or workflow guidance for an agent deciding between listing deployments versus getting a specific one.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. While 'Get' implies read-only, it does not explicitly confirm safety, disclose authentication requirements (beyond the profile parameter existing), mention rate limits, or describe what specific configuration details (MFA settings, password policies, etc.) are included in the response.
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?
Extremely concise at 7 words and a single sentence. No redundancy or filler. However, it may be overly terse given the lack of annotations and output schema, suggesting room for one additional sentence of behavioral context without sacrificing clarity.
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?
Adequate for a standard AWS 'describe' operation with well-documented parameters, but minimal given no output schema or annotations. It does not describe the return value structure or content, leaving the agent to infer what 'detailed configuration' encompasses.
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 coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (profile, region, user_pool_id) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics (syntax examples, format constraints), warranting the baseline score of 3 for high 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 uses a clear verb ('Get') and specific resource ('Cognito user pool'), stating exactly what is retrieved ('detailed configuration'). However, it misses the opportunity to explicitly distinguish from sibling 'aws_cognito_list_user_pools' (this fetches one specific pool by ID vs listing all pools).
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 provided on when to use this versus the 'list_user_pools' sibling, nor any mention of prerequisite requirements (e.g., needing a valid user_pool_id from a list operation first). The description stands alone without contextual usage hints.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to mention critical AWS list operation behaviors: pagination handling (despite the 'limit' parameter), whether a NextToken is returned (not shown in schema), read-only safety, or the structure of returned group objects.
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 single 6-word sentence is efficiently structured and front-loaded with the core action. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, the extreme brevity leaves significant gaps in necessary context, making it under-informative rather than appropriately concise.
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 zero annotations, no output schema, and the complexity of AWS Cognito operations (including pagination implications), the 6-word description is insufficient. It lacks mention of pagination tokens, return value structure, authentication requirements, and typical use cases for group management.
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 100%, with all 4 parameters (profile, region, user_pool_id, limit) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score of 3 per the rubric.
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 (groups in a Cognito user pool), distinguishing it from sibling tools like aws_cognito_list_user_pools (which lists pools, not groups within them). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from aws_cognito_list_users, which could cause confusion between user groups and individual users.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites like obtaining the user_pool_id from aws_cognito_list_user_pools first. The description provides purely functional information without operational context.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States 'List' implying read-only, but fails to disclose pagination behavior (despite max_results parameter), rate limits, or permission requirements.
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, seven words, front-loaded with verb. No redundancy, though brevity leaves room for additional behavioral context.
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?
Adequate for a simple list operation with 100% parameter coverage, but lacks description of return value structure given no output schema exists.
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 100%, documenting profile, region, and max_results. Description adds no semantic information beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score for high 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?
Clear verb (List) and resource (Cognito user pools) with scope (account/region). Implicitly distinguishes from siblings like aws_cognito_list_users and aws_cognito_describe_user_pool by specifying the target 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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this versus aws_cognito_describe_user_pool (which retrieves a specific pool by ID) or prerequisites like IAM permissions.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States 'List' implying read-only safety but fails to disclose pagination/truncation behavior (critical for AWS list operations with Limit parameter), rate limits, or return structure. Missing behavioral traits despite having zero annotation coverage.
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 efficient sentence of 9 words. Front-loaded with action verb. No redundant filler. However, breverity borders on under-specification given lack of output schema and annotations.
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?
Inadequate for AWS API complexity with no output schema. Missing crucial ListUsers API behaviors: pagination token handling (absent from schema), truncation indicators, filter syntax limitations, or return value structure. Should provide context for how 'limit' interacts with result sets.
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 100%, providing full parameter documentation. Description mentions 'optional filter' which restates schema constraint (filter not in required array) but adds no additional syntax guidance or format details beyond schema examples.
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?
Specific verb 'List' with clear resource 'users in a Cognito user pool'. Distinguishes from sibling 'list_user_pools' by specifying users (not pools) and implying the requires pool context. However, lacks explicit differentiation from other Cognito siblings like list_groups.
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 versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., obtaining user_pool_id), or when filtering is preferable. Description is purely functional declaration without workflow context.
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?
No annotations provided, and description fails to disclose that this is a read-only operation, omits pagination behavior (LastEvaluatedTableName/token handling), and doesn't mention potential output structure or rate limiting considerations.
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 front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Appropriate brevity for a list operation, though minimalism leaves behavioral gaps given lack of 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?
Sufficient for basic invocation given rich parameter schema, but incomplete regarding operational behaviors (pagination, read-only safety, output format) that annotations would typically cover.
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 has 100% description coverage (profile, region, limit all documented). Description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond schema, but baseline 3 is appropriate given complete 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?
Clear verb (List) and resource (DynamoDB tables) with scope (account/region). However, lacks explicit differentiation from sibling aws_dynamodb_describe_table, which retrieves detailed metadata for a single table versus listing table names.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like aws_dynamodb_describe_table, nor does it mention pagination behavior when handling accounts with many tables.
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?
No annotations provided, and description fails to disclose read-only nature, error conditions (e.g., repository not found, no policy configured), or required AWS permissions. 'Get' implies read-only but does not confirm safety.
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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Appropriately concise, though arguably too brief given the lack of output schema and annotations that necessitate more descriptive coverage.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and being an AWS integration, the description should specify the return format, error behaviors, and credential requirements. Single sentence insufficient for this complexity level.
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 100%, providing complete parameter documentation. Description adds no supplemental parameter semantics beyond the schema, warranting 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?
Clear verb ('Get') and resource ('lifecycle policy') with scope ('ECR repository'). Does not explicitly differentiate from sibling aws_ecr_describe_repositories, though the tool name makes the distinction clear.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like aws_ecr_describe_repositories, nor any prerequisites (e.g., repository must exist).
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. While 'Get' implies read-only safety, description omits key behavioral details: error handling for non-existent clusters, AWS API rate limit considerations, or whether this operation incurs costs.
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?
Extremely concise single sentence with no redundancy. However, given zero annotations and no output schema, the description is arguably too minimal and front-loaded with insufficient information density.
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?
Inadequate for a 3-parameter AWS API tool with no output schema and no annotations. Should specify what detailed information is returned (status, capacity, registered instances) or clarify the typical workflow with list_clusters.
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 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description mentions 'one or more' which maps to the array requirement of the 'clusters' parameter, but adds no further semantic details (e.g., expected format of ARNs) beyond 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?
Uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'ECS clusters', with 'detailed information' distinguishing it from sibling aws_ecs_list_clusters. However, lacks explicit differentiation regarding prerequisites (i.e., that cluster names/ARNs must be obtained first via list_clusters).
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Critical prerequisite relationship with aws_ecs_list_clusters (which supplies the cluster identifiers required by this tool) is not mentioned.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description does not confirm safety (idempotent, non-destructive), mention pagination behavior, or indicate required IAM permissions (ecs:ListClusters).
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?
Extremely concise at 7 words with no filler. The main verb appears first. However, given the absence of annotations and output schema, the brevity leaves significant gaps that could have been addressed with one additional sentence about prerequisites or pagination.
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 simple listing tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It could be improved by noting the relationship to 'aws_ecs_describe_clusters' or mentioning that results may be paginated, but it covers the basic operation scope.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage with clear parameter descriptions for 'profile' and 'region'. The description text 'in the account/region' loosely maps to these parameters but adds no syntax details, format constraints, or usage examples beyond what the schema already 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?
Description clearly states the verb (List) and resource (ECS clusters) with scope (account/region). However, it does not distinguish from sibling 'aws_ecs_describe_clusters' which requires specific cluster identifiers, or differentiate from similar list operations in other services like EKS or EMR.
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?
Description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'aws_ecs_describe_clusters', nor does it mention that this operation typically returns cluster ARNs/names that serve as prerequisites for the describe operations.
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?
No annotations provided, yet description discloses almost nothing beyond the operation name. Does not mention read-only nature, pagination behavior (despite max_results parameter), return format, or rate limit considerations. Carries minimal burden despite zero annotation coverage.
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?
Extremely terse at 5 words/6 tokens. No redundant words, but brevity crosses into under-specification given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, many siblings). Structure is front-loaded but insufficient.
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?
Inadequate for a 4-parameter AWS API wrapper with no output schema and no annotations. Description omits what data is returned, how pagination works, and crucially—how this differs from describe_services. Should explain the list-vs-describe distinction typical in AWS APIs.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline applies. Description mentions 'in a cluster' which loosely corresponds to the required 'cluster' parameter, but adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already provides (names, types, descriptions).
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?
States clear verb (List) + resource (ECS services) + scope (in a cluster). However, fails to differentiate from sibling 'aws_ecs_describe_services'—both involve services but the distinction between listing summaries versus describing details is not clarified.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include describe_services (for detailed metadata) and list_clusters (for cluster-level aggregation), but description offers no selection criteria or prerequisites.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose read-only safety, pagination behavior, or that it returns task ARNs rather than full task details. The mention of 'optional' filters is the only behavioral hint.
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 front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Efficient but arguably too terse given zero annotations and lack of output schema—it sacrifices necessary behavioral context for brevity.
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?
Minimum viable for a list operation: identifies resource and filtering. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should describe the return value (task ARNs) and potentially pagination limits. Adequate but leaves important operational context to trial and error.
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 100%, so the structured data documents all 5 parameters adequately. The description adds semantic grouping ('service or status filter') matching the enum and optional params, but does not add syntactic details or format constraints beyond 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?
Clearly states the resource (ECS tasks) and container (cluster) with specific verb 'List'. Distinguishes from sibling list_clusters and list_services by specifying 'tasks', though it omits the critical distinction from aws_ecs_describe_tasks (that this returns task ARNs/IDs while describe requires them as input).
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?
Mentions optional filters but provides no guidance on when to use versus aws_ecs_describe_tasks or prerequisites like cluster existence. No explicit workflow guidance or error handling context.
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?
No annotations are provided, placing full burden on the description. While 'Get' implies read-only access, the description does not explicitly confirm this is safe (non-destructive), does not describe what details are returned (capacity, status, instance types, autoscaling config), nor mention AWS credential requirements or region handling behavior.
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?
Extremely concise at six words in a single sentence. No waste, but also minimal value delivered. Structure is flat without front-loading of key distinctions (e.g., 'Get details for a specific EKS managed node group [vs list operation]...').
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?
With 100% input schema coverage and no output schema, the description meets minimum requirements but leaves significant gaps. For an AWS describe operation, should indicate what information is returned (configuration, health, scaling status) and clarify relationship to listing operations. Adequate but clearly 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 coverage is 100%, with all four parameters (profile, region, cluster_name, nodegroup_name) fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-specific context, but per rubric, baseline is 3 when schema descriptions are comprehensive. No mention that cluster_name and nodegroup_name are required identifiers or that profile/region are optional overrides.
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 uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'EKS managed node group details', clearly indicating a read operation on a specific resource. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tool aws_eks_list_nodegroups, which operates on the same resource type but returns a collection rather than details.
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 provided on when to use this versus aws_eks_list_nodegroups (for enumeration) or aws_eks_describe_cluster (for parent cluster details). No mention of prerequisites like needing the cluster_name first or typical use cases such as troubleshooting node group configuration.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden, yet omits return value structure, pagination behavior (despite max_results parameter), read-only safety characteristics, and credential requirements. Does not explain what happens if region/profile are omitted.
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 with zero redundancy, appropriately front-loaded. However, brevity crosses into under-specification given lack of annotations and output schema, preventing a 5.
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?
Fails to compensate for missing output schema by describing return format (cluster ARNs? names? statuses?). With no annotations and 3 optional parameters, description should explain behavior, pagination, and credential resolution, but provides only high-level purpose.
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 has 100% description coverage, establishing baseline 3. Description adds minimal semantic value beyond schema (only 'account/region' vaguely maps to profile/region params). Does not explain that max_results is optional or parameter interactions.
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?
States specific verb (List) and resource (EKS clusters) with scope (account/region). However, does not explicitly distinguish from sibling aws_eks_describe_cluster or clarify that it returns identifiers/names rather than full cluster details.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (AWS credentials/profiles), and no distinction from alternative discovery tools like aws_eks_describe_cluster which requires a cluster name obtained from this list.
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?
No annotations are provided, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond the action itself. It omits disclosure about read-only safety (implied by 'List' but not confirmed), pagination behavior, required IAM permissions, or error scenarios when the cluster doesn't exist.
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 single-sentence description is efficiently structured with the action front-loaded. While there is no wasted text, the extreme brevity leaves significant gaps in contextual information that could have been added without sacrificing clarity.
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 an AWS EKS operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the target resource but fails to explain what constitutes a Fargate profile, expected return format, or AWS-specific behaviors, relying entirely on the parameter schema for substance.
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 100% schema description coverage, the parameters (profile, region, cluster_name) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic value regarding parameter interactions or validation rules, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.
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 provides a clear verb ('List') and specific resource ('Fargate profiles for an EKS cluster'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'aws_eks_list_clusters' and 'aws_eks_list_nodegroups' by specifying the Fargate-specific resource type. However, it lacks scope details like pagination behavior or filtering capabilities.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites such as requiring an existing cluster, or error conditions (e.g., cluster not found). It states what it does but not when or why to choose it.
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?
No annotations provided, and description carries minimal burden. Does not disclose read-only nature, pagination behavior (despite max_results parameter), or error conditions (e.g., non-existent cluster). 'Managed' hints at AWS-specific behavior excluding self-managed nodes, but lacks operational transparency.
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 efficiently conveys core purpose without redundancy. Appropriately front-loaded with action verb. Severely underweight for the tool's complexity but wastes no words.
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?
Adequate for a simple list operation with 100% parameter schema coverage. However, given zero annotations and no output schema, description omits behavioral context (pagination, permissions, managed vs self-managed distinction) that would complete the operational picture.
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 coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description adds no parameter-specific context beyond schema, but schema sufficiently documents profile, region, cluster_name, and max_results meanings.
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?
Clear verb 'List' and specific resource 'managed node groups' scoped to 'EKS cluster'. Distinguishes from siblings implicitly via resource naming (vs fargate_profiles, vs describe_nodegroup for single item), though explicit differentiation is absent.
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 provided on when to use this versus aws_eks_describe_nodegroup (single detail) or aws_eks_list_clusters. No mention of prerequisites like cluster existence or IAM permissions.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden but fails to state this is a read-only operation, does not describe what data is returned when serverless_cache_name is omitted (list all), and omits any mention of rate limits or AWS API throttling considerations.
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, efficiently structured sentence with resource type front-loaded and clarifying scope (Redis/Memcached) in parentheses. No redundant or wasted text despite minimalism.
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?
Lacks critical behavioral context expected for a 4-parameter AWS query operation with no output schema or annotations. Should disclose return value structure, pagination behavior, and safety characteristics (read-only) given absence of structured metadata.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage (all 4 parameters documented), establishing baseline of 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific context (e.g., no syntax guidance for profile strings or pagination logic for max_results) beyond what the schema already 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?
Provides specific verb (Describe) and resource (ElastiCache Serverless caches), and parenthetically clarifies supported engine types (Redis/Memcached). Effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'describe_cache_clusters' by explicitly scoping to 'Serverless' 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?
Contains no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., when to use specific name filtering vs. listing all), nor does it explain pagination behavior with max_results or regional filtering strategies.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies read-only access, the description does not confirm safety, mention required AWS permissions, explain what 'detailed information' includes (status, configuration, instances), or disclose latency/cost implications of the AWS API call.
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 with 7 words. Every word earns its place with no redundancy. However, given the absence of annotations and output schema, the extreme brevity shifts the burden of discovery entirely to the schema and tool name.
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?
Lacks output schema and fails to hint at return value structure (cluster status, applications, hardware). Does not exploit the high schema coverage to provide usage examples or explain the relationship between the 'profile'/'region' parameters and the target cluster. Incomplete for an AWS API tool with behavioral complexity.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 3 parameters (profile, region, cluster_id). Since schema coverage is high, baseline score is 3. The description adds no semantic context beyond what the schema already provides, but does not need to compensate for missing 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?
Provides specific verb ('Get') and resource ('EMR cluster'), making the basic function clear. However, it fails to explicitly distinguish from sibling 'aws_emr_list_clusters' (summary list vs. single detailed view), which is crucial for agent selection among AWS EMR tools.
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?
Contains no guidance on when to use this tool versus 'aws_emr_list_clusters' or 'aws_emr_list_steps', nor does it mention the prerequisite of obtaining a cluster_id from a list operation first. Zero guidance on alternatives or prerequisites.
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?
Zero annotations provided, yet the description carries full burden. Omits critical AWS API behaviors: whether results are paginated (they typically are), if the operation is read-only/safe, rate limiting considerations, or what fields are returned in the absence of an output schema.
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 front-loaded and wastes no words. However, brevity arguably crosses into under-specification given the complexity of AWS EMR APIs and lack of supporting annotations or output schema.
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?
Inadequate for a 3-parameter AWS cloud API tool. Missing: output format details (since no output schema exists), pagination behavior, authentication requirements, and relationship to other EMR operations. The minimal description leaves agents guessing about critical operational aspects.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'account/region' which loosely contextualizes the profile and region parameters, but adds no semantic clarity on cluster_states filtering or the fact that all three parameters are optional.
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?
States specific verb (List) and resource (EMR clusters) with scope (account/region). Deducting one point because it fails to distinguish from sibling tool aws_emr_describe_cluster, which retrieves detailed configuration of a specific cluster versus listing multiple clusters.
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 provided on when to use this listing tool versus the sibling aws_emr_describe_cluster for detailed views. No mention of typical use cases, prerequisites (AWS credentials), or when filtering by cluster_states is recommended.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to provide it. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only (implied by 'List' but not explicit), whether results are paginated (the AWS ListSteps API supports pagination), or what happens if the cluster_id does not exist.
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 extremely concise at five words with no filler. However, given the complexity of AWS EMR operations and the four parameters involved, the description is arguably too terse to provide adequate context, though the single sentence does efficiently convey 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 4-parameter AWS service tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits authentication context (AWS profiles), pagination behavior, the meaning of step states, and error conditions (e.g., invalid cluster ID).
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter (profile, region, cluster_id, step_states) fully documented in the schema itself. Since the schema descriptions are complete, the baseline score applies even though the description text mentions no parameters explicitly.
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 identifies the action ('List') and resource ('steps in an EMR cluster'), distinguishing it from siblings like aws_emr_list_clusters (which lists clusters) and aws_emr_describe_cluster (which describes cluster metadata). However, it lacks scope clarification (e.g., whether it lists all steps or supports pagination) and doesn't define what constitutes an 'EMR step' for users unfamiliar with the service.
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, nor does it mention prerequisites such as requiring a valid cluster_id from an existing cluster, AWS credentials, or specific IAM permissions needed to view steps.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate that this is a read-only operation, omits pagination behavior (despite having a 'limit' parameter), and provides no information about what data structure is returned or potential rate limiting.
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?
Extremely concise at only 5 words with no redundancy. While efficient, this brevity contributes to under-specification rather than optimal information density. Every word earns its place, but additional sentences are 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?
Given 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a complex AWS service context, the description is insufficient. It omits critical AWS-specific context such as pagination tokens, the relationship between listing and describing streams, and expected output format.
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 100% schema description coverage across all 4 parameters, the schema fully documents the inputs. The description adds no additional semantic context (e.g., explaining that 'limit' implies pagination, or how 'delivery_stream_type' filters work), warranting the baseline score for high 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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (Kinesis Data Firehose delivery streams) clearly. However, it fails to distinguish from sibling tool `aws_firehose_describe_delivery_stream` (singular), leaving ambiguity about when to list versus describe a specific stream.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites such as IAM permissions, or how it relates to the sibling describe_delivery_stream tool. No filtering advice beyond the schema.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States 'List' implying read-only, but fails to disclose pagination behavior, default limits, return value structure, or whether results are complete vs. truncated when max_results is hit.
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?
Extremely concise at 4 words. No wasted words or redundancy. However, given zero annotations and missing output schema, the extreme brevity leaves significant gaps, preventing a 5.
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?
Incomplete for a 4-parameter tool with no output schema. Missing description of return values (database names, ARNs, or full objects?), pagination token handling, and the relationship between catalog_id and the account default.
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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all 4 parameters (profile, region, catalog_id, max_results). The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, but baseline 3 is appropriate given complete 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?
Clear verb 'List' and specific resource 'Glue Data Catalog databases'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool aws_athena_list_databases or other Glue tools like aws_glue_get_tables in the description text itself, though the name helps.
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 (e.g., aws_athena_list_databases), no mention of prerequisites (AWS credentials via profile), and no exclusions or contextual triggers.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden but fails to state this is read-only, doesn't describe pagination behavior (max_results hints at it but isn't explained), time range limitations, or what execution details are returned (status, duration, errors, logs).
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 single 6-word sentence is efficiently structured and front-loaded. However, extreme brevity leaves gaps given the lack of annotations and output schema; one additional sentence covering behavioral traits would improve utility without sacrificing clarity.
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?
With 100% input schema coverage, the description meets minimum viability for a read-only history query tool. However, given no output schema and no annotations, it should explain AWS Glue-specific constraints (e.g., retention periods, run states returned) to be fully 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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all 4 parameters including credential overrides (profile, region) and filtering (max_results). The description adds no parameter guidance beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the schema completeness warrants a baseline 3.
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 uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'execution history for a Glue job', clearly indicating it retrieves run instances rather than job definitions. However, it could better distinguish from sibling 'aws_glue_get_jobs' (which fetches job configurations) by explicitly mentioning this returns historical run instances/attempts.
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 'aws_glue_start_job_run' or general monitoring tools. It omits prerequisites (e.g., job must exist) and doesn't clarify if this shows active runs, completed runs, or both.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. While 'List' implies read-only, the description omits safety confirmation, pagination behavior, return structure, or default credential chain behavior when profile/region are omitted.
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?
Extremely brief at three words with no redundancy. However, brevity results in underspecification rather than efficient precision; front-loaded structure is appropriate but content is insufficient.
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?
Tool has only 3 primitive parameters (all optional) making it structurally simple, but absence of output schema and annotations means description should have disclosed return format or credential requirements. Adequate but 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 has 100% description coverage (profile, region, max_results all documented), establishing baseline 3. Description adds no parameter-specific context (e.g., that max_results controls pagination, or default behavior when omitted).
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?
Uses specific verb 'List' and resource 'Glue ETL jobs', clearly identifying the AWS service and resource type. However, it fails to distinguish from sibling tool 'aws_glue_get_job_runs' (executions vs definitions), which could cause confusion.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'aws_glue_get_job_runs', nor any prerequisites such as AWS credentials or IAM permissions required to list jobs.
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?
Lacks annotations, so description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. Only provides the --readonly constraint, omitting critical execution semantics: whether operation is synchronous/asynchronous, what identifier is returned for tracking, error conditions when job doesn't exist, or immediate cost/resource implications of starting an AWS Glue job.
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?
Extremely terse at two sentences. No wasted words, but potentially too brief for a complex operational tool. Front-loaded with action verb, though operational constraint could be secondary given lack of primary behavioral 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?
Insufficient for a 4-parameter mutation operation with no output schema and no annotations. Should disclose return value structure (presumably run ID), async execution model, and side effects (billing, resource consumption). Current description leaves agent underspecified for invocation decisions.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage (all four parameters documented). Description adds no semantic clarification beyond schema (e.g., no examples of argument key-value pairs, no clarification on profile precedence). Baseline score applies.
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?
Clear verb ('Start') and resource ('Glue job run') combination. Distinguishes implicitly from sibling tools like aws_glue_get_jobs and aws_glue_get_job_runs by indicating this initiates execution rather than retrieval. However, lacks explicit differentiation from monitoring/listing siblings in the description 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?
Provides only a negative constraint ('Blocked in --readonly mode') without positive guidance on when to select this tool versus monitoring alternatives. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., job must exist first) or typical workflow context (e.g., check status with get_job_runs after starting).
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies read-only, it doesn't explicitly confirm safety, mention error handling for invalid detector IDs, disclosure of what 'configuration' and 'status' specifically entail, or authentication requirements beyond the profile parameter.
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 efficient and front-loaded. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, the extreme brevity leaves gaps that additional structure could fill without violating conciseness principles.
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?
Without annotations or output schema, the description should compensate by hinting at return value structure, error conditions, or prerequisite workflows. It mentions 'configuration and status' but doesn't clarify what data is returned or how to handle the required detector_id dependency.
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 has 100% description coverage with clear descriptions for profile, region, and detector_id. Description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage, meeting the baseline expectation.
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?
States clear verb ('Get') and resource ('GuardDuty detector') with scope ('configuration and status'). Distinguishes implicitly from sibling 'list_detectors' by focusing on specific detector details, though explicit differentiation would strengthen it further.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus 'list_detectors' or 'get_findings'. The prerequisite workflow (needing detector_id from list_detectors) is only mentioned in the schema parameter description, not the main description.
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?
No annotations are provided, and the description carries minimal behavioral context. While 'List' implies read-only, there's no disclosure of pagination behavior, rate limiting, what shard attributes are returned, or that this is a safe non-destructive operation.
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 with no redundant words. However, it borders on under-specification given the lack of annotations and output schema; one additional sentence covering behavioral traits would improve completeness without sacrificing clarity.
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 3-parameter read-only tool with complete schema coverage, the description is minimally viable. However, given no annotations, no output schema, and potential confusion with sibling Kinesis tools, it lacks contextual guidance on expected return values and operational prerequisites.
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 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents all three parameters (profile, region, stream_name) with examples and formats. The description adds no semantic information beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('shards in a Kinesis stream'), making the purpose immediately clear. However, it fails to distinguish from the sibling tool aws_kinesis_describe_stream, which also returns shard information but with different semantics and output format.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus aws_kinesis_describe_stream or aws_kinesis_list_streams. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., stream must exist) or that this is typically used to obtain shard IDs for subsequent read/write operations.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies read-only operation, the description does not confirm this is safe/non-destructive, does not explain pagination behavior (despite the max_results parameter), and does not describe the return format or Lake Formation-specific authorization requirements.
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 with zero waste. However, given the tool's complexity (6 parameters including nested objects and enums), it may be too terse to adequately guide agent behavior without additional context from the schema.
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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally viable. It identifies the core operation but omits Lake Formation-specific context (e.g., what permissions entail, catalog scope) and behavioral details that would help the agent handle the response or understand filtering precedence.
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 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents individual parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value by grouping 'principal' and 'resource' as the two filtering approaches, but does not elaborate on valid parameter combinations, the nested structure of the principal object, or the enum values for resource_type.
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 (Lake Formation permissions) and identifies the two primary filtering dimensions (principal or resource). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like `aws_lakeformation_list_resources` or `aws_lakeformation_get_data_lake_settings`, though the scope is distinct enough to avoid confusion.
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, nor does it explain whether principal and resource filters can be combined or are mutually exclusive. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
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?
No annotations provided, requiring the description to disclose behavioral traits. While 'List' implies a read operation, the description does not explicitly confirm read-only safety, explain pagination behavior (e.g., NextToken handling), or document required IAM permissions (lakeformation:ListResources).
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 efficiently front-loaded with no redundant words. However, it is undersized given the lack of annotations and output schema, requiring additional descriptive content to be truly complete.
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?
Inadequate for a tool with no annotations and no output schema. Fails to explain what specific resource information is returned, how pagination works beyond the max_results parameter, or what constitutes a 'resource' in the Lake Formation context (registered S3 locations).
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 100%; all three parameters (profile, region, max_results) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, syntax constraints, or cross-parameter relationships, warranting the 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?
States specific verb (List) and resource domain (Lake Formation registered resources). Implicitly distinguishes from sibling aws_lakeformation_list_permissions via the object 'resources' versus 'permissions', though it omits specifying that 'resources' refers to data lake locations/S3 paths.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like aws_lakeformation_get_data_lake_settings, nor does it explain when to specify profile/region overrides or how to handle pagination with max_results.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description does not confirm safety, disclose potential AWS API rate limits, mention costs, or describe error conditions (e.g., function not found).
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 of nine words with no redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action verb. However, it is minimally informative rather than richly so, stopping short of providing usage context or behavioral details that would make it exemplary.
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?
The description adequately indicates what the tool retrieves ('configuration and metadata') despite the absence of an output schema. However, given the lack of annotations and the complexity of AWS API operations, it lacks guidance on authentication requirements, regional considerations, or error handling that would make it 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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the structured fields already clearly define 'profile', 'region', and 'function_name'. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics, syntax guidance, or usage examples beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.
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 provides a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Lambda function') with clear scope ('detailed configuration and metadata'). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'aws_lambda_list_functions' (list vs. get single) and 'aws_lambda_invoke' (retrieve vs. execute), though it doesn't explicitly reference 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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus 'aws_lambda_list_functions' (for discovery) or 'aws_lambda_invoke' (for execution), nor does it mention prerequisites like AWS credentials or required IAM permissions.
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?
No annotations provided, and description fails to disclose behavioral traits: does not confirm read-only safety, does not describe pagination behavior (truncation/next tokens), does not describe output format, and does not mention AWS API rate limiting considerations.
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 front-loaded with the action and contains no redundant words. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, the extreme brevity contributes to under-specification rather than efficient communication.
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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and only a minimal description, the tool definition lacks necessary context for an AWS resource enumeration operation. Should describe pagination behavior, output structure (e.g., function names/ARNs returned), and multi-region considerations.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.
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?
States clear verb (List) and resource (Lambda functions) with scope (account/region). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools aws_lambda_get_function or aws_lambda_invoke, leaving the agent to infer the 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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like aws_lambda_get_function or aws_lambda_invoke. No mention of pagination behavior (despite max_items parameter) or when region/profile overrides are necessary.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Retrieve' implying read-only safety, but fails to disclose pagination behavior (critical for CloudWatch logs), result ordering (forward/backward), or error handling when streams don't exist.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The first states purpose, the second states requirements. Zero waste and appropriately front-loaded.
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?
With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits critical operational context such as pagination handling (despite the presence of a 'limit' parameter), timestamp behavior, and differentiation from filtering alternatives.
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 100%, with all 7 parameters fully documented. The description mentions the two required parameters specifically, adding emphasis but no additional semantic context (syntax, format examples, or value constraints) beyond the schema definitions.
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 states a clear verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('log events from a specific CloudWatch log stream'), identifying the scope accurately. However, it fails to distinguish from sibling tool 'aws_logs_filter_log_events', which also retrieves log events but supports cross-stream filtering and pattern matching.
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 only states the prerequisite ('Provide both log_group_name and log_stream_name'), which restates required schema parameters. It provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus 'aws_logs_filter_log_events' or other alternatives.
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?
No annotations provided and description offers minimal behavioral disclosure. Does not indicate if this is read-only (implied but not explicit), whether results are paginated, what fields are returned, or any rate limiting constraints.
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?
Extremely brief single sentence with no waste, but arguably under-specified given lack of annotations and output schema. Front-loading is adequate with the essential verb-resource pair.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and no description of return values or pagination behavior, the definition leaves significant gaps. Relies entirely on well-documented input schema but fails to explain what constitutes an 'environment' or how to interpret results.
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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions, establishing baseline of 3. Description adds '(Apache Airflow)' context which helps explain the resource type, but does not elaborate on parameter interactions (e.g., how max_results affects pagination).
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?
States clear verb (List) and resource (MWAA environments) with helpful acronym expansion to Apache Airflow. However, fails to distinguish from sibling tool aws_mwaa_get_environment (list all vs. get 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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this versus the sibling get_environment tool, or when pagination (max_results) is needed. No prerequisites or alternatives mentioned.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. While 'List' implies read-only, it fails to disclose: return format (names only vs ARNs/objects), pagination behavior (critical for AWS list operations), required IAM permissions, or that results respect the profile/region parameters.
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, front-loaded with action and target. Efficient but arguably undersized given the lack of output schema and annotations requiring compensatory description.
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?
Minimal description fails to compensate for missing output schema (doesn't describe what data structure is returned) and missing annotations (doesn't confirm read-only safety or pagination). For a tool wrapping AWS API discovery, should mention pagination or result limits.
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 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description mentions 'account/region' implicitly referencing the profile/region parameters but adds no semantic context about the engine_type enum filter or the fact that all parameters are optional enabling simple discovery use cases.
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?
Clear verb (List) and resource (OpenSearch domain names) with scope (account/region). Distinguishes from sibling 'describe_domain' by focusing on 'names' vs detailed configuration. However, omits mention of the engine_type filtering capability present in the schema.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance or prerequisites mentioned. Despite having all-optional parameters, it doesn't state that calling without arguments lists all domains in the default region/profile. No comparison to sibling aws_opensearch_describe_domain.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. 'Describe' implies read-only but doesn't confirm non-destructive behavior or idempotency. Fails to disclose what happens when db_cluster_identifier is omitted (returns all clusters vs error) or mention pagination/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?
Single sentence with no filler words. Every word earns its place identifying the service and resource. However, given zero annotations and multiple sibling tools with similar names, the description is arguably too brief rather than appropriately concise.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description should provide more context. It fails to explain that omitting db_cluster_identifier returns all clusters, doesn't clarify AWS credential requirements, and doesn't distinguish DocumentDB vs Aurora behavior despite having a DocumentDB sibling 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'clusters' which loosely maps to the db_cluster_identifier parameter but adds no syntax details, validation rules, or format examples beyond what the schema already 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 uses specific verb 'Describe' and resource 'RDS Aurora database clusters', distinguishing from siblings like aws_docdb_describe_db_clusters (DocumentDB), aws_memorydb_describe_clusters (MemoryDB), and aws_rds_describe_db_instances (instances vs clusters). However, it doesn't explicitly state this is a read-only operation.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus similar siblings (e.g., when to use describe_db_clusters vs describe_db_instances for Aurora Serverless v2 provisioned instances). No mention of prerequisites like AWS profile requirements.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only behavioral hint is 'manual and automated' scope. Lacks critical AWS context: pagination behavior with max_records, default behavior when cluster_identifier omitted (all clusters?), IAM permissions needed, or return structure.
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, zero redundancy, front-loaded with verb and resource. Efficient structure, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise given AWS 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?
Inadequate for 5-parameter AWS tool with no output schema. Missing: pagination token behavior, default scope when filters omitted, IAM permissions (redshift:DescribeClusterSnapshots), and whether results include encrypted snapshot indicators. High schema coverage saves parameter documentation, but operational context is absent.
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 has 100% description coverage with clear AWS-centric descriptions. With high schema coverage, baseline is 3. Description adds no parameter-specific context (no examples, no format clarification, no cross-parameter dependencies), but schema adequately documents inputs.
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?
States specific verb 'List' and resource 'Redshift cluster snapshots'. Parenthetical '(manual and automated)' adds scope clarity. Distinguishes from sibling aws_redshift_describe_clusters by specifying 'snapshots' vs 'clusters', though terse.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this vs alternatives, when filtering by cluster_identifier is required vs optional, or prereqs like IAM permissions. Zero alternatives or exclusions mentioned.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic operation (List) but omits critical AWS-specific behaviors such as pagination semantics, whether results are filtered by permissions, or what the return structure contains (JSON array, object, etc.).
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 with no wasted words. However, it may be overly terse for a tool lacking an output schema, as it provides no indication of what the caller receives in return.
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 simple listing operation with complete input schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, given the absence of an output schema, it should describe the return value (e.g., group ARNs, names, tags) and ideally mention that this queries the AWS Resource Groups service specifically.
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 100%, documenting profile, region, and max_results. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, but with high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema sufficiently defines the inputs.
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), resource (Resource Groups), and scope (in the account). However, it lacks differentiation from other 'list' tools on this server (e.g., aws_cognito_list_groups, aws_ecs_list_clusters) and doesn't clarify that these are AWS Resource Groups service groups rather than IAM or other group types.
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. While there are no other Resource Group-specific siblings, it doesn't indicate whether this requires specific permissions, how it compares to aws_tagging_get_resources, or when pagination (via max_results) is necessary.
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?
No annotations provided, and description carries full burden but adds no behavioral context. Doesn't state this is a read-only operation, doesn't explain AWS pagination behavior (NextToken pattern), credential caching, or rate limit implications despite being an AWS API call.
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?
Extremely concise at 4 words. No waste, but arguably underspecified for an AWS tool where authentication and pagination behavior typically need explanation. Front-loaded with clear subject/verb/object structure.
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?
Adequate for a standard list operation with good schema coverage, but missing expected AWS-specific context: no mention of what the response contains (endpoint ARNs, names, statuses), pagination continuation tokens (notably absent from schema), or pagination limits.
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 has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters. The description 'List SageMaker inference endpoints' provides minimal additional context about parameter usage, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.
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?
Clear verb 'List' and resource 'SageMaker inference endpoints'. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling 'aws_sagemaker_describe_endpoint' (which gets single endpoint details vs listing multiple), though the naming convention hints at 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'describe_endpoint', or when filtering by status is appropriate versus retrieving all endpoints. No mention of pagination handling despite 'max_results' parameter implying pagination exists.
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?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. Fails to disclose pagination behavior, whether results are time-limited, required IAM permissions beyond the profile parameter, or if the operation is read-only (implied by 'List' but not confirmed).
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?
Extremely concise at 4 words with no wasted content. However, the brevity borders on under-specification rather than efficient information density.
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?
Adequate for a simple list operation with fully documented schema parameters, but lacks output format details or pagination guidance given no output schema exists.
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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all 4 parameters (profile, region, status_equals, max_results). Description adds no parameter-specific context beyond the schema, warranting 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?
States specific verb (List) and resource (SageMaker training jobs) clearly. However, does not distinguish from sibling SageMaker list operations (e.g., list_endpoints, list_notebook_instances) or clarify scope.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling SageMaker tools or other AWS listing operations. No prerequisites or filtering strategy mentioned despite the presence of optional filter parameters.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. While it states what is retrieved (verification status), it fails to describe specific returned attributes (e.g., VerificationStatus, VerificationToken), error handling for non-existent identities, or AWS API rate limit considerations.
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 efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Zero redundancy or wasted words.
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?
No output schema exists, yet the description fails to describe the return structure or specific verification attributes returned. For a 3-parameter AWS API tool with no annotations, the description is incomplete regarding behavioral outcomes and return value semantics.
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 has 100% description coverage. The description reinforces that identities are 'email addresses and domains' but adds no syntax details, format constraints, or usage examples beyond what the schema already 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?
Clear verb 'Get' and specific resource 'verification status for SES identities', with clarification that identities include 'email addresses and domains'. Implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'list_identities' by focusing on verification attributes rather than mere enumeration.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this versus 'list_identities' or other SES tools, no prerequisites stated (e.g., that identities must already be registered in SES), and no mention of error scenarios or alternatives.
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?
No annotations are provided, yet the description carries no behavioral context. It does not indicate this is a safe read-only operation, whether results are paginated, what fields are returned, or required IAM permissions.
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?
Extremely brief single sentence with no filler. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, this brevity undermines completeness rather than demonstrating efficient communication.
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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and AWS-specific complexity, the description should compensate by explaining return structure or permissions. It provides neither, leaving significant 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 100% (profile, region, max_results are fully documented). The description adds no parameter-specific context beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.
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?
States a clear verb ('List') and resource ('Step Functions state machines'), matching the AWS service terminology. However, it fails to differentiate from sibling tools like 'aws_sfn_describe_state_machine' (which requires an identifier) or 'aws_sfn_list_executions'.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this versus 'describe_state_machine' or other siblings. Does not mention that all parameters are optional or typical discovery workflows.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions scope (account/region) but fails to disclose AWS-specific behaviors: pagination (returns NextToken), that results include only topic ARNs (not full attributes), IAM permissions required (sns:ListTopics), or 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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with action verb, no redundancy. However, extreme brevity leaves critical behavioral and contextual gaps unfilled.
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?
Missing output schema means description should explain what gets returned (topic ARNs). Omits AWS-specific necessities: pagination handling, regional scope implications, and permission requirements. As a simple list tool with complete input schema, it covers the basics but leaves operational context undefined.
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 has 100% description coverage with clear examples. Description adds no parameter-specific context, but with complete schema coverage this meets baseline expectations.
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?
States specific action (List), resource (SNS topics), and scope (account/region). The word 'all' helps distinguish from sibling aws_sns_get_topic_attributes which targets a specific topic. However, it does not clarify the return value format (e.g., ARNs vs full objects).
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this versus aws_sns_get_topic_attributes, aws_sns_list_subscriptions, or aws_sns_publish. No mention of prerequisite permissions or AWS credential requirements.
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?
No annotations provided. While the description mentions SecureString decryption, it critically omits the out-of-band approval token requirement, audit reason requirements (sensitive_access_* params), and error cases. No mention of what the return value contains.
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?
Two sentences with zero redundancy. However, extreme brevity is inappropriate given the security-sensitive nature and complex authorization workflow implied by the parameter schema.
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?
Security-sensitive secret retrieval tool with 7 parameters including complex authorization controls, no annotations, and no output schema. Description under-describes the security access workflow and prerequisites necessary for safe 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 coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description mentions SecureString decryption which contextualizes the with_decryption boolean, but adds no guidance on the four sensitive_access_* security parameters or their relationships.
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?
States specific action (Get) and resource (SSM parameter value) with key behavioral detail (SecureString decryption). Does not distinguish from sibling aws_ssm_get_parameters_by_path which retrieves multiple parameters by path.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this single-parameter getter versus batch alternatives, nor explains that sensitive_access_token and related parameters are required for accessing decrypted secrets.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Fails to disclose that this operation may return decrypted secrets requiring special access tokens and explicit acknowledgment (evident from sensitive_access_token, sensitive_access_reason, and sensitive_access_acknowledged parameters). Omits pagination behavior despite max_results parameter.
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 with no redundancy. However, given the 9 parameters including complex security controls, this brevity borders on under-specification rather than efficient distillation.
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?
Inadequate for a security-sensitive tool with 9 parameters including explicit sensitive data handling controls. Lacks warnings about audit requirements (sensitive_access_reason), acknowledgment obligations, or AWS-specific pagination 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 coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description adds 'path hierarchy' context clarifying the path parameter's purpose, but adds no semantics for the 4 sensitive-access parameters or the interaction between with_decryption and sensitive_access_acknowledged.
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?
States specific action (Get), resource (SSM parameters), and mechanism (under a path hierarchy). Distinguishes from sibling aws_ssm_get_parameter by specifying the path hierarchy approach, though lacks explicit contrast with aws_ssm_describe_parameters.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like aws_ssm_get_parameter (single parameter lookup) or aws_ssm_describe_parameters. Missing prerequisites like path format requirements (leading slashes) or when decryption is appropriate.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. While it identifies the underlying API (Resource Groups Tagging API), it fails to describe behavioral traits: it does not state this is read-only/safe, does not describe the return format (ARNs? Full resources?), pagination behavior beyond the parameter description, or rate limiting concerns.
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 consists of two efficient sentences with no extraneous text. The first sentence establishes purpose; the second identifies the underlying API. Every word earns its place, though a slight expansion to mention output format or safety would improve utility without violating conciseness.
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 (cross-service search with 5 parameters) and absence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It omits what the tool returns (resource ARNs, tags, etc.) and lacks behavioral guidance that would normally appear in annotations. It meets the threshold for usability but leaves significant 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 100%, with all five parameters (profile, region, tag_filters, resource_type_filters, resources_per_page) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, but with such high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the schema carries the semantic weight.
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 establishes a clear verb ('Find'), resource ('resources'), and scope ('by tag across all supported AWS services'). The mention of 'Resource Groups Tagging API' adds implementation context. It implicitly distinguishes from service-specific tools via 'across all supported AWS services,' though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like aws_ec2_describe_instances or aws_tagging_get_tag_keys.
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 service-specific alternatives (e.g., aws_ec2_describe_instances) versus the sibling tagging metadata tools (aws_tagging_get_tag_keys). It omits prerequisites such as required IAM permissions for the Resource Groups Tagging API.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Describe' in AWS contexts implies a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly state it is safe, non-destructive, or disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or what fields are returned (no output schema 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?
The description is extremely compact at one sentence. It is front-loaded with the primary operation and efficiently appends the filtering caveat. Every word earns its place, though brevity comes at the cost of missing contextual 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?
For a simple read operation with three well-documented string parameters, the description minimally suffices. However, given the absence of an output schema, it should ideally describe the return structure or key attributes retrieved (e.g., state, subnet ID). It leaves significant AWS-specific behavioral context undocumented.
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 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'optionally filtered by VPC,' which aligns with the vpc_id parameter, but largely restates what the schema already documents. It adds no semantic detail for the profile or region parameters beyond the schema definitions.
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 identifies the verb ('Describe') and resource ('NAT gateways'), and mentions the VPC filtering capability. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling VPC tools like describe_vpcs or describe_subnets, relying on the tool name to convey the specific 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 mentions that VPC filtering is optional ('optionally filtered by VPC'), implying when to use the vpc_id parameter. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over similar VPC discovery tools, prerequisites (e.g., requiring the VPC to exist), or error conditions.
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?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. While 'describe' implies read-only, the description doesn't explicitly state safety (read-only), pagination behavior, rate limiting, or what occurs when called without filters (returns all subnets in all regions?).
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 with no redundancy or filler. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, the extreme brevity represents under-specification rather than optimal conciseness—could front-load more critical behavioral 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?
With 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It doesn't hint at return contents (subnet CIDRs, AZs, states), explain AWS credential requirements, or clarify the relationship between subnets and VPCs in the returned data.
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 coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'optionally filtered by VPC' which maps to the vpc_id parameter, but adds no semantic context for profile/region credentials or the subnet_ids array parameter beyond what the schema titles already convey.
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 states the specific action (Describe) and resource (subnets) clearly, and mentions the VPC filter capability. However, 'describe' is somewhat generic AWS terminology and doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling aws_vpc_describe_vpcs beyond the resource name itself.
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 provided on when to use vpc_id vs subnet_ids parameters, when to call without filters, or any prerequisites like requiring a valid AWS profile. No alternatives or exclusions mentioned despite multiple filtering options available.
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?
No annotations provided, yet description fails to disclose read-only safety, pagination behavior, or output structure. While "describe" implies read-only in AWS context, explicit confirmation of non-destructive nature is absent.
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 efficiently conveys core purpose without redundancy. Front-loaded with action verb. Minor deduction for extreme brevity that sacrifices helpful context about limitations.
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?
Minimum viable for a 2-parameter describe operation. Lacks return value documentation given absence of output schema, and omits mention of filtering limitations (underlying AWS API supports filters not exposed in this wrapper).
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (profile, region). Description adds no parameter-specific context, but baseline 3 is appropriate given comprehensive schema documentation carries the load.
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?
Clear verb ("Describe") and specific resource ("VPC peering connections") with scope ("in the account"). Distinguishes from sibling VPC tools by targeting peering connections specifically. However, lacks scope clarification on whether it returns all connections or supports filtering.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus querying VPCs directly or related networking tools. No mention of prerequisites like IAM permissions or when to specify profile/region overrides.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description lacks explicit safety guarantees, pagination behavior, rate limiting concerns, or error conditions typical for AWS operations.
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 single-sentence description is extremely compact with no redundant words and places the action first. However, it borders on under-specification given the complexity of AWS API Gateway operations and lack of supporting annotations.
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 an AWS listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits prerequisite chain information (how to obtain api_id), return value structure, and pagination behavior necessary for correct agent 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 100%, so the structured schema fully documents all parameters (profile, region, api_id). The description adds minimal parameter-specific context, though mentioning 'v2' implicitly constrains the api_id parameter to v2 APIs. Baseline score warranted by high 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 provides a specific verb (List), resource (routes), and clear scope (HTTP/WebSocket API v2), which effectively distinguishes this from v1 API Gateway siblings like aws_apigateway_get_resources. However, it omits the service name 'API Gateway' which would make the context unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by specifying 'v2' and 'HTTP/WebSocket', distinguishing it from REST API Gateway v1 tools. However, it fails to explicitly state prerequisites (e.g., that api_id must be obtained from aws_apigatewayv2_get_apis first) or mention when to use this versus aws_apigatewayv2_get_stages.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. While 'List' implies read-only access, it does not confirm this, nor does it disclose pagination behavior (despite having max_results), rate limits, IAM permissions required, or output format details.
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 with zero waste: efficiently conveys the core action, target resource, and return payload 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?
With 100% schema coverage and a simple listing purpose, the description is minimally sufficient. However, given no output schema exists and there are 6 optional parameters with no behavioral guidance, it lacks completeness regarding usage patterns and result structure.
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 coverage is 100% with comprehensive descriptions for all 6 parameters (including enum values for by_state). Description mentions 'status and resource details' hinting at return value content, but does not add semantics for how parameters interact (e.g., filter logic is AND or OR).
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?
States specific verb 'List' and resource 'AWS Backup jobs', and mentions return contents ('status and resource details'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like aws_backup_list_backup_plans or aws_backup_list_recovery_points_by_backup_vault, which also list backup-related 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?
Provides no guidance on when to use filtering parameters (by_state, by_resource_type, etc.) versus retrieving all jobs, nor does it mention prerequisites like AWS credentials 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. While it notes 'recent' (implying time-bounded results), it fails to define the time window, describe pagination behavior with `max_items`, confirm the read-only nature, or mention AWS rate limits and credential requirements.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy. Every word serves a descriptive function.
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 100% input schema coverage, the description adequately covers inputs. However, with no output schema, no annotations, and no description of return values or pagination behavior, it provides only minimum viable information for an AWS list 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?
With 100% schema description coverage, all four parameters (profile, region, distribution_id, max_items) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no supplementary parameter information, warranting the baseline score of 3.
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 provides a specific verb ('List') and resource ('cache invalidation requests for a CloudFront distribution'), clearly differentiating from sibling tools like `aws_cloudfront_create_invalidation` and `aws_cloudfront_list_distributions`. However, it does not explicitly name siblings or describe the relationship between listing and creating invalidations.
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 `aws_cloudfront_create_invalidation`, prerequisites such as IAM permissions, or expected workflow (e.g., checking status after creation). It merely states the operation 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies read-only behavior, the description does not explicitly state safety characteristics, pagination limits, rate limiting, or that AWS credentials are required via the profile parameter.
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 of nine words that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or filler content.
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 listing tool with complete input schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, given the lack of output schema and annotations, it could disclose return value structure or AWS-specific behavioral constraints to be fully 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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the structured schema already documents all six parameters clearly. The description does not add parameter semantics beyond the schema, qualifying for the baseline score of 3.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('CloudWatch alarms') and clarifies what information is returned ('state and threshold configuration'). This distinguishes it from sibling metric tools like aws_cloudwatch_list_metrics, though it could 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites like AWS authentication requirements or when to filter by prefix vs. specific alarm names.
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?
No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It omits critical behavioral details: no mention of read-only/safe operation nature, pagination behavior (ListMetrics API is paginated), or what the return structure contains (list of metric definitions with dimensions).
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 of 9 words with no redundancy. Front-loaded action verb and immediately scoped resource. Every word earns its place despite the information density.
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?
With 5 filter parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core action but leaves gaps regarding the optional nature of filters, expected return values, and AWS-specific pagination limits that would help an agent invoke this correctly.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. Description adds minimal semantic context beyond the schema ('namespace or resource' loosely maps to parameters) but baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the 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?
States specific verb 'List' and resource 'CloudWatch metrics' clearly. Mentions scoping 'for a namespace or resource' which hints at filtering capabilities. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'get_metric_data' or 'get_metric_statistics' which retrieve actual data points rather than metric metadata.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to list metrics vs. retrieving statistics with get_metric_statistics). Does not mention that all parameters are optional or typical prerequisite workflows like discovering namespaces first.
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 are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it hints at the return value with 'full configuration details', it fails to disclose safety characteristics (read-only vs. mutation), error handling behavior (what happens if a project doesn't exist), or the batch limit of 100 (which is only in the schema).
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 no redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word earns its place by conveying essential scope ('full configuration', 'one or more').
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 that no output schema exists, the description provides a minimal hint at the return value ('full configuration details'), but lacks detail on the structure, pagination, or partial failure behavior. For a retrieval tool with simple parameters and no nested objects, this is 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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents the 'profile', 'region', and 'names' parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value for parameters beyond implying the batch nature ('one or more') which aligns with the array type of the 'names' parameter. This meets the baseline score of 3 for high 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('CodeBuild projects'), and the phrase 'full configuration details' effectively distinguishes this from the sibling 'list_projects' tool (which returns summaries) and 'batch_get_builds' (which returns builds, not projects). However, it could explicitly name the sibling alternatives for maximum clarity.
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 'aws_codebuild_list_projects' (to discover names first), nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing valid project names. There is no 'when-not-to-use' or prerequisite information.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full disclosure burden. However, it only states the basic operation ('Get') without clarifying if this is read-only (presumed but not guaranteed), what error conditions might arise, rate limits, or the structure/format of the returned stage states. It mentions 'current execution state' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like data freshness, pagination, or required IAM permissions.
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 consists of a single, efficient sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the verb ('Get') and immediately specifies the scope ('current execution state of each stage'). Every word earns its place.
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?
With 100% input schema coverage, the parameters are well documented in the structured fields. However, no output schema exists, and the description only briefly mentions what data is retrieved ('execution state of each stage') without describing the return structure, field types, or nesting. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, more description of the return value would be appropriate.
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 100%, with all three parameters (profile, region, name) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline score of 3 applies when schema coverage is high and sufficient.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('current execution state of each stage in a CodePipeline'). It implicitly suggests runtime state monitoring versus configuration inspection (distinguishing from 'get_pipeline'), but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'list_pipeline_executions' or clarify when to choose this over other CodePipeline tools.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_pipeline' for configuration, 'list_pipeline_executions' for execution history). It does not mention prerequisites like AWS credentials, required permissions, or typical use cases such as troubleshooting failed stages.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. 'List' implies read-only but does not explicitly confirm safety, idempotency, pagination behavior, or result format. Does not mention the maximum page size or that results may be truncated without pagination tokens.
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 7-word sentence with zero redundancy. Main action and resource front-loaded. Parenthetical scoping is efficient and informative. Every word earns its place.
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?
Adequate for a simple enumeration tool with complete input schema. However, lacks description of return values (no output schema exists to compensate) and pagination behavior. Sufficient for tool selection but not for full operational 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 has 100% description coverage with clear parameter types and purposes. Description mentions 'event buses' which loosely contextualizes the `name_prefix` parameter, but adds no semantic detail beyond the schema (e.g., no mention of regex limitations on name_prefix or default limit behavior). Baseline 3 appropriate for high-coverage schemas.
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?
Clear verb 'List' + resource 'EventBridge event buses' with scope clarification (default, custom, partner). Accurately identifies the AWS service and resource type. Lacks explicit differentiation from sibling `aws_events_list_rules`, but the resource specificity makes the intent unambiguous.
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 versus siblings like `aws_events_describe_rule` or `aws_events_list_targets_by_rule`. No mention of prerequisites (AWS credentials) or that all parameters are optional. Zero behavioral context for the agent to make selection decisions.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits: it does not confirm the read-only nature (though implied by 'List'), describe the return structure or metadata fields, mention pagination behavior, or note AWS API rate limiting considerations.
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 7-word sentence that is front-loaded with the action. There is no redundant or wasteful content; every word serves the purpose of identifying the operation.
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 5 parameters including regex filtering and pagination controls, plus AWS service complexity with no output schema, the description is minimal but functional. It identifies the core operation but omits mention of the regex filtering capability and what table metadata is returned.
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 100% schema description coverage (all 5 parameters documented), the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'database' which aligns with the database_name parameter, but adds no additional semantic context for expression (regex filtering) or max_results pagination that isn't already 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 'List tables in a Glue Data Catalog database' provides a clear verb (List), resource (tables), and scope (Glue Data Catalog). It distinguishes from siblings like aws_glue_get_databases (which returns databases, not tables) and aws_athena_list_table_metadata (by specifying Glue). However, it lacks specificity on scope (e.g., whether filtering is supported) which is present in the parameters.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., aws_athena_list_table_metadata for Athena queryable tables), nor does it mention prerequisites like AWS authentication or required Glue permissions. It assumes the user knows the context.
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?
No annotations provided, so description must carry full behavioral disclosure burden. Fails to indicate this is read-only (Safe), whether results are cached, rate limits, or what the returned data structure looks like (counts by severity levels? JSON format?). Only describes the input transformation.
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 action and scope. No wasted words, appropriate length 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?
With 100% schema coverage and 4 simple parameters, basic coverage is achieved. However, lacking annotations and output schema, the description should have explained the return value structure (e.g., 'returns severity counts') and read-only nature 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 has 100% description coverage, establishing baseline of 3. Description adds context that the statistics are 'grouped' (helpful for understanding finding_statistic_types), but incorrectly suggests 'finding type' is supported when the enum only contains COUNT_BY_SEVERITY.
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?
Clear verb-resource combination: 'Get a count of GuardDuty findings'. Specifies the grouping dimension ('by severity') but inaccurately mentions 'finding type' when the schema enum only supports COUNT_BY_SEVERITY. Fails to explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like list_findings or get_findings.
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 provided on when to use this statistics aggregation versus retrieving individual findings (get_findings) or listing them (list_findings). No prerequisites or permissions mentioned despite requiring a detector_id.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to mention key traits: that this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior with max_items, required IAM permissions (iam:ListUsers), or what the return structure looks like. Only the filter constraint is mentioned.
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 (11 words) that front-loads the primary action. Every word earns its place by conveying the core operation and the key filtering capability 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 100% schema coverage and 4 parameters with no output schema or annotations, the description provides the minimum viable context for a list operation. It adequately complements the detailed schema but lacks richness regarding AWS-specific behaviors, permissions, or result pagination that would be expected for cloud infrastructure 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds 'optional' context for path_prefix, though this is redundant with the schema's default value ('/'). It does not add semantic context for profile, region, or max_items beyond the schema definitions.
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 (IAM users) with a specific scope (optional path prefix filter). It distinguishes from siblings like aws_cognito_list_users by specifying 'IAM users' and from aws_iam_list_roles/policies by naming the specific resource type, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 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?
The description mentions the path prefix filter is 'optional', hinting at usage flexibility, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like aws_cognito_list_users, or when filtering by path prefix is appropriate versus other filtering strategies.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate that this is a read-only/safe operation, does not describe pagination behavior (despite the limit parameter implying it), and does not hint at the return structure or AWS-specific behaviors like throttling.
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 9 words in a single sentence. Every word earns its place with the action verb front-loaded. No redundancy or noise is 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 simple 4-parameter schema with complete coverage and no nested objects, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks hints about the return value structure (log group ARNs, creation dates, etc.) and safety characteristics that would complete the picture.
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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'optional prefix filter' which maps to the log_group_prefix parameter, but this adds only marginal value beyond the schema's own description ('Filter by log group name prefix'). No additional semantic context is provided for profile, region, or limit parameters.
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 (CloudWatch Log groups) and mentions the key filtering capability (prefix filter). However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like aws_logs_filter_log_events or aws_logs_get_log_events, which operate on log events rather than log groups.
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 mentions the 'optional prefix filter' capability, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling alternatives (e.g., when to list groups vs. when to retrieve events from a specific group). No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal details. It claims to list 'all' accounts without clarifying pagination behavior, whether suspended accounts are included, or that AWS Organizations is a global service (which affects how the region parameter behaves).
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 consists of a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words or boilerplate. It is appropriately front-loaded with the critical action and resource information.
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 listing tool with a simple schema and no output schema provided, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits what data is returned (account IDs, emails, status, ARN) and lacks important AWS Organizations context (e.g., that results may be paginated and require multiple API calls to get 'all').
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?
The description does not mention the profile or region parameters; however, the input schema has 100% description coverage with clear documentation including examples. With the schema providing complete semantic information, 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 identifies the verb (List) and resource (AWS accounts in the organization), distinguishing it from sibling tools like aws_organizations_list_organizational_units or aws_organizations_list_roots that operate on different resource types. However, it lacks contextual guidance on the relationship between accounts and organizational units or when to prefer this tool over describe_organization.
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 prerequisites (e.g., requiring Organizations master account or delegated admin permissions), no when-to-use versus alternatives, and no warnings about rate limiting or pagination. It states only what the tool does, not when to invoke it.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. 'List' implies read-only but doesn't confirm lack of side effects, required IAM permissions, pagination behavior, or error handling (e.g., non-existent parameter group).
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 at 6 words with zero waste. Front-loaded with action verb and resource. Every word earns its place.
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?
Minimum viable for this complexity level. With fully documented schema and simple string parameters, the description suffices for basic invocation. However, lacks operational context expected for AWS services (permissions, throttling, pagination) and has no output schema to reference.
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 100%, so baseline applies. The description adds minimal semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the four parameters (profile, region, parameter_group_name, source).
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?
States the specific action ('List') and target resource ('parameters for a Redshift parameter group'). Implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'aws_redshift_describe_clusters' by referencing 'parameter group' instead of 'clusters', though explicit contrast would strengthen this.
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 provided on when to use versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., needing to obtain parameter_group_name from elsewhere), or typical workflow context.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only explains the operation purpose, not behavioral traits. It fails to explicitly state this is a safe read-only operation, describe pagination behavior, or explain that 'max_items' accepts string values (an AWS API quirk).
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, efficiently structured sentence with no wasted words. The parenthetical clarification '(DNS domains managed by this account)' adds immediate value and scope definition without clutter.
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 straightforward enumeration tool with full schema coverage, the description adequately identifies the resource type being returned. However, given the absence of an output schema, it should ideally describe the return structure (e.g., zone IDs, names, and DNS configurations) and mention pagination 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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage with clear documentation for 'profile', 'region', and 'max_items' parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline score for high-coverage schemas.
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 provides a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Route53 hosted zones') with helpful scoping context ('DNS domains managed by this account'). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'aws_route53_get_hosted_zone' (singular retrieval) and 'aws_route53_list_resource_record_sets' (different resource type) through standard naming conventions, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 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?
The description states what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'aws_route53_get_hosted_zone' for specific zone details. There is no mention of pagination behavior with 'max_items' or prerequisites like AWS authentication configuration.
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?
No annotations are provided, leaving the description to carry full behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate this is a read-only operation, mention required IAM permissions (s3:ListAllMyBuckets), note rate limiting concerns, or describe the return structure (bucket names, creation dates, regions). Only behavioral hint is 'in the account' which defines 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?
Single sentence with zero wasted words. Information density is high relative to length; every word serves to define the operation's scope and target.
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?
Adequate for a simple enumeration tool with complete input schema coverage. However, lacking both annotations and output schema, the description should compensate with behavioral context (permissions, return format) which it does not provide. Acceptable but clearly 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 100%, with both profile and region well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-specific context (e.g., when to override region, how profile maps to ~/.aws/config), warranting the baseline score for high-coverage schemas.
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?
States specific verb (List) and resource (S3 buckets) with clear scope ('in the account'). Implicitly distinguishes from sibling aws_s3_list_objects by targeting buckets versus objects, but does not explicitly name the alternative or clarify account-level vs. bucket-level 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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other S3 operations (like aws_s3_list_objects) or when to specify the optional profile/region parameters versus relying on default credentials. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description fails to mention pagination behavior (despite the max_results parameter), authentication requirements, or error scenarios when Security Hub is not configured.
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 single-sentence description is front-loaded with the action verb, immediately identifies the resource, and uses a brief parenthetical to provide concrete examples without verbosity. Every word serves a purpose.
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 simple list operation and well-documented schema, the description adequately identifies what is returned (enabled standards with examples). However, lacking an output schema, it misses an opportunity to specify what properties (ARN, status, etc.) are returned for each standard subscription.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (profile, region, max_results). The description does not add semantic details about parameter interactions or formats beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('security standards enabled in Security Hub'). The parenthetical examples (CIS, AWS Foundational, PCI DSS) effectively distinguish this from sibling tools that handle 'findings', 'hub' configuration, or 'products' by clarifying what constitutes a security standard.
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 aws_securityhub_describe_hub or aws_securityhub_get_findings, nor does it mention prerequisites such as Security Hub being enabled in the account.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. While 'List' implies read-only behavior, it fails to disclose that this returns parameter metadata (names, types, tiers) but not actual values, or describe pagination behavior given the lack of output schema.
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 efficient sentence with action-fronted structure. No redundant words or repetition of the tool name. Appropriate length for the complexity level.
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?
Adequate for a listing tool with well-documented parameters, but gaps remain: no output schema exists and the description doesn't compensate by describing return values, pagination tokens, or throttling considerations. Sibling tool relationships unexplored.
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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all 4 parameters including an example JSON for filters. Description text mentions 'optional filters' but adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the 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?
Clear verb ('List') and resource ('SSM Parameter Store parameters'), but lacks explicit differentiation from siblings like aws_ssm_get_parameter (single item retrieval) or aws_ssm_get_parameters_by_path (hierarchical retrieval). The mention of 'optional filters' provides implicit context for bulk 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (get_parameter for specific values, get_parameters_by_path for hierarchy). Only minimal guidance implied by 'optional filters'.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. While 'List' implies read-only, it omits critical AWS operational context: pagination behavior (this API is paginated), potential latency on large accounts, and specific IAM permissions required (tag:GetTagKeys).
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 of 10 words with zero waste. Front-loaded with the action verb and immediately identifies the resource type. Appropriate length for a straightforward listing tool.
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?
Adequate for a simple 2-parameter list operation, but missing return value documentation (no output schema exists to compensate) and pagination warnings typical of AWS Resource Tagging API operations. Acceptable minimum but with clear 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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for 'profile' and 'region'. The description mentions 'account/region' which loosely references these parameters but adds no additional syntax details, format constraints, or examples beyond what the schema already 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?
Clear verb ('List') and resource ('tag keys') with specific scope ('across AWS resources in the account/region'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'aws_tagging_get_tag_values' (which retrieves values for specific keys) or 'aws_tagging_get_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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tagging tools (get_resources, get_tag_values). No mention of prerequisites like IAM permissions for the Resource Tagging API.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to indicate this is a read-only operation (though implied by AWS 'Describe' convention), omits pagination behavior, rate limits, costs, or what specific route table attributes are returned. This is a significant gap for an AWS API tool.
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 extremely concise with zero wasted words, front-loaded with verb and resource. However, given the complexity of AWS networking and the lack of output schema, this brevity results in underspecification rather than elegant minimalism.
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?
Without an output schema or annotations, and given this is an AWS EC2/VPC operation with complex return values (routes, associations, propagation), the description is insufficient. It omits the service context (EC2), read-only nature, and relationships between route tables, subnets, and gateways that would guide proper tool selection.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only reinforcing that vpc_id acts as an optional filter. It does not add syntax details, examples, or clarify the relationship between profile/region parameters and the AWS API call.
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 identifies the action ('Describe') and resource ('route tables'), and mentions the optional VPC filter which implicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like aws_vpc_describe_vpcs. However, it could explicitly clarify that this returns routing configuration data rather than VPC metadata.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'optionally filtered by VPC' provides basic usage context for the vpc_id parameter, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other VPC networking tools (like aws_vpc_describe_subnets or aws_vpc_describe_nat_gateways), no mention of IAM permissions required, or prerequisite setup.
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?
With zero annotations provided, the description carries full burden but omits critical AWS behavioral details: no mention of pagination (NextToken/continuation), throttling considerations, or what fields are returned (IP addresses, names, IDs). The '(allow/block lists)' parenthetical adds semantic context for IP set purpose but insufficient operational detail.
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 efficient 6-word description front-loaded with action verb and resource type. Parenthetical adds value without verbosity. No redundant phrases or structural waste.
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?
Adequate for a simple list operation with complete input schema, but lacks output context (no output schema provided). Missing pagination behavior mention which is critical for AWS list operations that may require iteration via NextToken.
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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all 4 parameters (profile, region, scope, limit). The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
Clear verb 'List' and resource 'WAF v2 IP sets' with parenthetical context '(allow/block lists)' that clarifies the resource's purpose. Differentiates from siblings like list_web_acls and list_rule_groups by specifying 'IP sets', though does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with get_web_acl.
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 explicit guidance on when to use versus retrieving specific IP sets (e.g., get_ip_set) or how to choose between REGIONAL and CLOUDFRONT scope. Lacks prerequisites or conditional usage patterns despite being one of several WAFv2 listing tools.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to state that this is a read-only operation, does not describe pagination behavior despite the presence of a 'limit' parameter, and omits any mention of return value structure or AWS permission requirements.
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. Every word earns its place by identifying the operation and resource type.
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?
While the description adequately identifies the target resource for a simple list operation, it lacks completeness given the absence of annotations and output schema. It omits return value details, pagination behavior, and the required scope filtering context that would help an agent invoke the tool correctly.
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 coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds slight semantic value by mentioning 'managed and custom' rule groups (clarifying the resource types), but does not elaborate on parameter interactions (e.g., that 'scope' is required and filters the results by deployment type).
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the exact resource ('WAF v2 managed and custom rule groups'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like aws_wafv2_list_web_acls and aws_wafv2_list_ip_sets. However, it does not explicitly clarify the scope of the operation (e.g., per-region) or prerequisites.
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 (e.g., aws_wafv2_get_web_acl for individual ACL details), nor does it mention the required 'scope' parameter or when pagination via 'limit' is necessary.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Get status' implies a safe read operation without side effects, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it lacks specifics on what status values are returned (e.g., QUEUED, RUNNING, SUCCEEDED, FAILED), polling expectations, or AWS permission requirements.
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 of nine words with no filler. Information density is high: verb ('Get'), target ('status and details'), and scope ('Athena query execution') are all present. However, extreme brevity leaves no room for necessary context like lifecycle relationships.
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?
Without annotations or output schema, and given this is part of a multi-step Athena workflow (start → check status → get results), the description is minimally viable but incomplete. It should reference the query lifecycle relationship to aws_athena_start_query_execution and indicate that execution must be SUCCEEDED before calling aws_athena_get_query_results.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (profile, region, query_execution_id). The description mentions 'query execution' which aligns with the required query_execution_id parameter but adds no semantic context for the optional AWS profile/region overrides or their syntax 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 verb 'Get' and resource 'Athena query execution' with specific scope 'status and details'. However, it fails to distinguish from sibling aws_athena_get_query_results, which also operates on query executions but returns result data rather than metadata/status.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the presence of aws_athena_start_query_execution and aws_athena_get_query_results siblings, the description should clarify this is for polling query state after starting a query and before retrieving results.
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?
Without annotations or output schema, the description carries the full transparency burden. It partially compensates by enumerating return fields (status, logs, duration, phases), giving insight into what data is retrieved. However, it omits error handling (invalid IDs), required IAM permissions, and 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?
Single sentence of nine words with front-loaded verb. Highly efficient with no redundancy. However, the brevity comes at the cost of missing behavioral and contextual details that would be valuable given the lack of 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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the essential return field information (status, logs, duration, phases) which is necessary for utility. However, it lacks usage context, permission requirements, and error behavior that would make it complete for an AWS API 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 100%, providing clear documentation for all parameters (profile, region, ids). The description adds minimal parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, though it implicitly contextualizes 'ids' as referring to CodeBuild builds through the resource mention.
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?
Specific verb 'Get' and resource 'CodeBuild builds' with clear scope of return data (status, logs, duration, phases). Implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'list_builds_for_project' by targeting specific builds by ID vs listing, though it could explicitly clarify the 'batch' capability implied by the tool name.
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?
Specifies what the tool retrieves but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus siblings like 'aws_codebuild_list_builds_for_project' or 'aws_codebuild_batch_get_projects'. No mention of the typical workflow (e.g., that you need build IDs from elsewhere first).
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It correctly specifies that only 'names' are returned (implying minimal data retrieval), but omits critical behavioral details such as pagination support, rate limits, and whether results are ARNs or simple name strings.
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 four-word description is efficient and front-loaded with no waste. However, given the absence of annotations and output schema, it is overly terse and misses opportunities to add contextual value (such as pagination notes) without sacrificing clarity.
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?
While the description specifies the resource type returned (names), it lacks output format details needed in the absence of an output schema. For a read-only listing operation with complete schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate but should mention 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, examples, or validation rules beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the 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 (List) and resource (CodeBuild project names), specifically noting that it returns 'names' rather than full project objects, which implicitly distinguishes it from aws_codebuild_batch_get_projects. However, it does not explicitly name siblings or clarify when to use each.
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 such as aws_codebuild_batch_get_projects (for full project details) or aws_codebuild_list_builds_for_project. There is no mention of pagination behavior or result limits.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. While 'Describe' implies read-only, the description does not confirm non-destructive behavior, mention AWS API rate limits, pagination behavior, or credential requirements beyond the profile parameter.
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 two-sentence structure with zero waste. Front-loaded with the core purpose (Describe EC2 security groups) followed by filtering capabilities.
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?
Adequate for a read-only describe operation with 100% parameter schema coverage. However, given lack of annotations and output schema, it could benefit from mentioning read-only safety, pagination limits, or result format expectations typical of AWS describe operations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. Description adds value by enumerating specific filter types available (group IDs, names, or VPC), providing semantic context for the 'filters' parameter beyond the schema's generic 'EC2 API filters' description.
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?
Specifies clear verb-resource pair (Describe EC2 security groups) and mentions filtering capabilities. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool aws_ec2_describe_instances in the description text, relying instead on the tool name.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like aws_ec2_describe_instances or VPC-specific tools. Does not mention that all parameters are optional despite 0 required parameters in schema.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the 'optional path prefix filter' capability, implying filtering behavior, but does not explicitly state the read-only/non-destructive nature of the operation, pagination behavior (despite max_items parameter), or the structure/format of returned role data.
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 single-sentence description is appropriately front-loaded with the action ('List IAM roles') and efficiently packs in the scope ('in the AWS account') and key filtering capability without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though slightly more behavioral context would justify a fifth sentence.
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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description adequately covers the core purpose but leaves gaps regarding return value structure (e.g., does it return ARN, name, or full trust policy?), pagination continuation, and error conditions. It meets minimum viability for a simple list operation but lacks richness expected when structured metadata is missing.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage (all 4 parameters documented), establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'optional path prefix filter' which reinforces the schema but adds no new semantic information about parameter usage, valid path formats, or interaction between max_items and implicit pagination.
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 specific action ('List') and resource ('IAM roles') being operated on, and scopes it to 'the AWS account'. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling IAM list tools (aws_iam_list_users, aws_iam_list_policies) by specifying 'roles', though it does not explicitly name them as alternatives in the description 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?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as AWS credentials configuration, required IAM permissions (e.g., iam:ListRoles), or when filtering by path_prefix is appropriate versus listing all roles.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions specific data retrieved (admins, create defaults) but omits critical behavioral details such as authorization requirements, rate limits, whether the operation is read-only (implied but not stated), or what format the response takes.
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 with the main action front-loaded. However, given the absence of annotations and output schema, the brevity leaves significant gaps in behavioral context that could have been addressed with additional clauses.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description meets minimum viability by identifying the target resource and exemplifying the returned data. However, it fails to compensate for missing structured data by describing return formats, pagination behavior, or error conditions expected from this AWS API call.
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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline score is 3. The description adds context about what 'settings' entails (admins, defaults) but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents for profile, region, and catalog_id.
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 provides a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('Lake Formation data lake settings'), and enumerates specific setting types ('admins, create defaults'). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like aws_lakeformation_list_permissions by focusing on configuration settings rather than access permissions, though it could be more explicit about scope differences.
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 contains no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use this instead of aws_lakeformation_list_permissions or list_resources), nor does it mention prerequisites such as requiring Lake Formation administrative privileges or specific IAM 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clarifies that parent_id accepts root IDs or OU IDs, adding behavioral context. However, it omits read-only nature, pagination behavior, rate limits, and error handling (e.g., what happens if parent doesn't exist).
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, front-loaded with action and resource. No redundant text, though extremely terse given the complexity of AWS Organizations hierarchies.
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?
Adequate for a list operation with complete input schema, but lacks output structure description (no output schema provided), pagination details, or AWS Organizations-specific prerequisites needed for successful 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 has 100% coverage documenting parameter formats. Description adds semantic context by mentioning 'parent (root or OU)' which aligns with parent_id, but doesn't add validation rules, optional vs required distinctions, or format examples beyond 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?
Clear verb 'List' and resource 'organizational units' with scope 'for a parent (root or OU)'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like list_accounts and list_roots by specifying the OU resource and parent-child relationship.
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 versus alternatives, no mention of AWS Organizations prerequisites (e.g., account must be in an organization), and no deprecation or permission requirements stated.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It partially compensates by listing return fields (name, type, TTL, values), but omits critical AWS API behaviors including pagination controls (NextRecordName/IsTruncated), rate limiting, and explicit read-only safety confirmation.
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 two-sentence structure is efficient and front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, second states return values. No tautological waste. Could improve by replacing the second sentence with pagination guidance given the lack of output schema.
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 6 parameters including pagination controls and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It mentions return fields but should explain the pagination pattern (how to use start_record_name with the NextRecordName response) and that hosted_zone_id must be obtained from list_hosted_zones.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter context (such as explaining that start_record_name/start_record_type work together for pagination) beyond what the schema already 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 identifies the verb (List), resource (DNS records), and scope (Route53 hosted zone). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'aws_route53_list_hosted_zones' (which lists zones rather than records within them) or 'aws_route53_get_hosted_zone' (which retrieves zone metadata).
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, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., obtaining the hosted_zone_id from list_hosted_zones first). There is no discussion of pagination workflow despite pagination parameters existing in the schema.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentioning 'verified identities' adds valuable SES-specific context (only verified identities are returned), but lacks confirmation that this is read-only, doesn't describe pagination behavior despite 'max_items' parameter, and omits output format details.
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, front-loaded with specific action and resource. Efficient and waste-free, though given zero annotations and no output schema, slightly more behavioral context could have been added without sacrificing clarity.
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?
Minimal but adequate for a simple list operation with complete schema coverage. Lacks output description (pagination tokens, identity ARN format) and AWS-specific behavioral notes (rate limiting, eventual consistency), but the 100% parameter schema coverage mitigates some 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 100%, establishing baseline of 3. Parenthetical '(email addresses and domains)' implicitly maps to the identity_type enum values, but description does not explicitly document parameter usage, constraints, or interdependencies beyond what the schema already 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?
Clear verb ('List') and resource ('SES verified identities') with specific scope (email addresses and domains). Distinguishes from siblings like aws_ses_send_email and aws_ses_get_identity_verification_attributes by focusing on enumeration rather than action or attribute retrieval, 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 versus alternatives (e.g., aws_ses_get_identity_verification_attributes for checking status of specific identities). No mention of prerequisites like AWS credentials or when filtering by identity_type is recommended.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. The phrase 'full definition and configuration' hints at the return payload structure, but lacks explicit disclosure of read-only safety, required IAM permissions (states:DescribeStateMachine), or whether the output includes the full ASL JSON.
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 with zero waste. Front-loaded with the core action. However, given the absence of annotations and output schema, the extreme brevity leaves significant gaps that a second sentence could have addressed (e.g., 'Returns the state machine's ASL definition and metadata').
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?
No output schema exists, so description attempts to cover return value with 'full definition and configuration'. This is minimally sufficient but vague given AWS API complexity. Lacks workflow context (arn prerequisite) and behavioral safety characteristics that would help an autonomous agent select this confidently.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage (profile, region, state_machine_arn all documented). With high schema coverage, baseline score is 3. Description adds no parameter semantics beyond schema, but none are needed given complete 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?
Clear verb ('Get') and resource ('Step Functions state machine') with scope ('full definition and configuration'). However, it fails to explicitly distinguish from siblings like aws_sfn_list_state_machines or aws_sfn_describe_execution, which are distinct 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 provided on when to use this tool versus listing state machines or describing executions. No mention that the state_machine_arn typically comes from aws_sfn_list_state_machines, or that this is a read-only diagnostic 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states the basic operation without mentioning safety characteristics (read-only), pagination behavior, rate limits, or error conditions. The verb 'List' implies non-destructive behavior, but explicit confirmation is absent.
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 leads with the action verb and avoids redundancy. While appropriately sized for a simple list operation, it is arguably too minimal given the lack of annotations, though this primarily affects completeness rather than conciseness itself.
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 simplicity (a read-only list operation) and complete input schema documentation, the description covers essential functionality. However, the absence of annotations combined with no disclosure of behavioral traits or output characteristics leaves gaps in operational 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions the optional filter behavior for topic_arn, but does not add significant semantic depth or usage examples beyond what the schema already 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 uses the specific verb 'List' with resource 'SNS subscriptions' and clarifies scoping with 'optionally filtered by topic ARN'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like `aws_sns_list_topics`, relying solely on the tool name for distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'optionally filtered by topic ARN' implies the filter can be omitted to list all subscriptions, providing basic usage context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling SNS tools and omits prerequisites like AWS authentication requirements.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It adds valuable context that methods are included in the return, but fails to disclose read-only safety, pagination behavior, or error handling characteristics.
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 efficient sentence (11 words) with front-loaded verb. No repetition of schema details or redundant terms. Every word earns its place.
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?
Adequate for a listing tool with 100% input schema coverage, mentioning the key output components (paths, methods). However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should explicitly state the read-only nature or pagination behavior 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 100%, establishing baseline 3. The description parenthetically clarifies that 'resources' means 'paths', adding slight semantic value beyond the schema, but doesn't elaborate on parameter relationships or formats.
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?
States specific verb (List) and resource (resources/paths for a REST API) including scope (configured methods). Implies distinction from sibling aws_apigateway_get_rest_apis by requiring an existing REST API, though it doesn't explicitly name 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 explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like aws_apigateway_get_rest_apis or aws_apigatewayv2_get_routes. No prerequisites mentioned despite requiring a valid rest_api_id.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It provides valuable behavioral context by specifying the exact TimePeriod JSON format required. However, it omits critical operational details like read-only safety, API rate limits, or pagination behavior for large result sets.
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 two-sentence structure is efficient and front-loaded. The first sentence establishes scope; the second provides essential syntax guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy, though a brief mention of AWS Cost Explorer context could strengthen it slightly.
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 complex nested parameters (group_by filters, time_period objects) and absence of an output schema, the description is minimally complete. It hints at grouping behavior but should explicitly state what data structure is returned (e.g., time-ordered cost records) to fully compensate for the missing output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 100% schema description coverage, the description adds crucial value by providing the concrete TimePeriod format example {'Start': 'YYYY-MM-DD', 'End': 'YYYY-MM-DD'}, which clarifies the nested object structure better than the schema alone. This significantly aids correct invocation.
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 tool retrieves 'cost and usage data for a time period' with specific grouping capabilities. However, it fails to distinguish this historical data tool from the sibling 'aws_ce_get_cost_forecast' (forecast vs actual spending), which is relevant given both are Cost Explorer tools.
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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, particularly the sibling forecast tool. It does not mention prerequisites like required AWS permissions (ce:GetCostAndUsage) or cost/usage limits for queries.
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?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. It helpfully notes 'single' metric constraint (distinguishing from batch APIs), but omits other critical behaviors: read-only nature, up to 1,440 data point limit, that periods must be multiples of 60 for detailed metrics, and CloudWatch API costs.
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 12-word sentence front-loaded with action and scope. Every word earns its place; no 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?
Despite 9 parameters and no output schema/annotations, the minimal description covers basic purpose. However, it lacks output format details, pagination behavior, or error conditions expected for a complex AWS API 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 has 100% description coverage with clear examples (e.g., 'CPUUtilization', 'AWS/EC2'). Description adds no semantic clarifications beyond what schema provides, earning baseline 3.
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?
Clear verb 'Get' and resource 'CloudWatch metric', with explicit mention of supported statistics (Average, Sum, Min, Max) and time range. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tool 'aws_cloudwatch_get_metric_data' which serves a similar purpose.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus 'get_metric_data' (which supports batching multiple metrics) or 'list_metrics' (for discovery). No prerequisites mentioned (e.g., knowing namespace/dimensions first).
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It partially compensates by describing what information is returned (status, duration, error info), but fails to disclose that this is a read-only operation, requires AWS credentials, or mention any rate limiting considerations.
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 of nine words with a precise parenthetical summary of return values. It is appropriately front-loaded with no redundant or wasted text.
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?
While the description mentions key return fields to compensate for the missing output schema, it lacks completeness regarding behavioral safety (read-only status) and does not reference the hierarchical relationship to other CodeDeploy operations (applications → deployment groups → deployments).
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 100% schema description coverage, the structured schema already fully documents all three parameters (profile, region, deployment_id). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with clear resource ('CodeDeploy deployment') and specifies what details are returned (status, duration, error info). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'aws_codedeploy_list_deployments' or clarify this retrieves a single deployment by ID versus a 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 like list_deployments first to obtain a deployment ID, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing a valid deployment ID from a prior listing or create 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds valuable context by specifying 'recent' executions and inclusion of 'status' data. However, it omits critical behavioral details: it doesn't disclose the read-only/safe nature of the operation, pagination behavior (despite max_results parameter), what time range constitutes 'recent', or required IAM permissions.
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, front-loaded sentence of nine words. Every word earns its place: 'List' (action), 'recent executions' (scope), 'CodePipeline' (resource), 'with their status' (return value hint). 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 four-parameter list operation with complete schema documentation, the description adequately covers the core purpose. However, gaps remain regarding output structure (no output schema exists), the specific scope of 'recent' (time-based vs. count-based), and pagination continuation patterns.
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 100%, with all four parameters (profile, region, pipeline_name, max_results) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but given the complete schema coverage, this meets the baseline expectation.
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 identifies the resource (pipeline executions) and action (list), with specific mention of 'status' in results. It differentiates from the sibling 'list_pipelines' by focusing on 'executions'. However, it fails to distinguish when to use this versus 'get_pipeline_state', which also retrieves pipeline status information.
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 prefer this tool over related siblings like 'aws_codepipeline_get_pipeline_state' (which retrieves current state vs. execution history) or prerequisites such as requiring an existing pipeline. No 'when-not-to-use' or alternative recommendations are present.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It lists the specific metadata categories returned (schema, throughput, indexes, status), which adds value. However, it omits behavioral traits such as read-only safety, authentication requirements, rate limiting, or error handling when a table does not exist.
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 of nine words that front-loads the key information. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or waste.
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 has 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the operation's purpose by listing the returned metadata categories. However, for an AWS API operation with potential error conditions and permission requirements, the description lacks contextual depth regarding execution 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 100% (all three parameters are well-documented in the input schema), establishing a baseline of 3. The description focuses on the operation's output rather than input parameters, neither adding to nor detracting from the parameter 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 what the tool retrieves (schema, throughput, indexes, status) using specific verbs and resource identification. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like aws_dynamodb_list_tables (which returns only table names) or aws_dynamodb_query/scan (which return data, not metadata), though the content implies 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 such as aws_dynamodb_list_tables (when only names are needed) or when to prefer it over query/scan for metadata inspection. No prerequisites or exclusions 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It partially compensates by disclosing return values (tag status, digest) since no output schema exists, but omits critical AWS-specific behaviors: pagination mechanics, read-only safety characteristics, and error cases (e.g., repository not found).
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 efficient sentence with zero redundancy. Front-loaded action verb ('List') immediately clarifies operation type. No structural waste despite containing service name (ECR) and key capability hints.
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?
Adequate for basic invocation but gaps remain for a cloud API tool. Missing pagination context (critical for AWS list operations), no authentication scope requirements, and no error handling guidance. Mention of return fields partially compensates for absent output 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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions provided. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema—mentioning 'tag status' reinforces the filter parameter but adds no syntax clarification or usage examples. Baseline 3 warranted for high-coverage schemas.
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?
Clear verb (List) and resource (ECR repository images) with specific output fields mentioned (tag status, digest). However, it fails to distinguish from sibling tool `aws_ecr_describe_images` which performs a similar but distinct operation.
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 provided on when to use this versus `aws_ecr_describe_images` (which retrieves detailed metadata vs. this paginated list). Also omits prerequisite context such as requiring existing repository or AWS credential configuration.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully enumerates the specific data fields returned (version, endpoint, VPC config, etc.), which helps set expectations. However, it lacks information about error behaviors (e.g., cluster not found), authentication requirements, or 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb and efficiently lists the specific information retrieved. No redundant or wasted words.
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?
Without an output schema, the description partially compensates by listing specific return fields. However, it does not describe the response structure, nesting, or error cases. Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, read-only operation), this is 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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (profile, region, name). The description does not add additional semantic context beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage baseline.
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 (Get) and resource (EKS cluster info) with specific attributes listed (version, endpoint, VPC config, logging, status, platform version). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like aws_eks_describe_nodegroup or aws_eks_list_clusters, though the resource specificity is implied.
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 aws_eks_list_clusters (for discovery) or aws_eks_describe_nodegroup (for node-level details). No prerequisites or error conditions 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation returns listener configuration details (ports, protocols, rules), but fails to mention pagination behavior typical of AWS Describe* APIs, authentication requirements beyond the schema fields, or the read-only nature of the operation.
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 at 9 words. The single sentence is front-loaded with the action verb, and the parenthetical details (ports, protocols, rules) efficiently specify output content without verbosity. Zero wasted words.
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 3 simple parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it could have described the return structure or pagination behavior since no output schema exists to document the response format.
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 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description does not add any supplementary semantics, examples, or clarifications about the parameters (profile, region, load_balancer_arn) beyond what the schema already defines.
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 (listeners) and specifies what data is returned (ports, protocols, rules). While it implicitly distinguishes from siblings by targeting 'listeners' rather than 'load balancers' or 'target groups', it lacks explicit contrast with related ELBv2 describe 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 provided on when to prefer this over sibling tools like aws_elbv2_describe_load_balancers, nor any mention of prerequisites such as obtaining the load balancer ARN first. The description contains no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information.
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?
'Get' implies read-only safety, but with zero annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It omits error behaviors (e.g., rule not found), AWS credential requirements, or rate limiting details that would help an agent handle failures.
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 action verb, zero redundancy. Appropriate density 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?
Adequate for a read-only describe operation with 4 well-documented parameters, but lacks output format disclosure (no output schema exists) and error handling context that would help interpret results.
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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all 4 parameters (profile, region, name, event_bus_name). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage, warranting the 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?
Clear verb 'Get' and resource 'EventBridge rule' with scope 'full configuration'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling aws_events_list_rules (which returns summaries) vs this detailed single-rule retrieval.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this versus list_rules, or prerequisites like needing the rule name beforehand. Relies purely on AWS API naming conventions being understood by the agent.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the optional event bus scoping behavior, but lacks critical safety disclosure (read-only vs. mutating), pagination behavior implied by 'limit' parameter, return value structure, or AWS rate limit considerations.
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, nine words. Immediately actionable verb placement, zero redundancy. Efficiently conveys core purpose without extraneous content.
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 5-parameter list operation with 100% schema coverage and simple types, the description is minimally adequate. However, given absence of annotations and output schema, it should explicitly state read-only safety and distinguish from the 'describe' sibling 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 has 100% description coverage, establishing baseline of 3. Description adds semantic context that event bus filtering is optional ('optionally'), aligning with the default behavior documented in schema, but does not elaborate on parameter interactions or input formats beyond 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?
States specific verb (List) and resource (EventBridge rules) clearly. Mentions optional event bus filtering. However, fails to distinguish from sibling 'aws_events_describe_rule' which likely retrieves single rule details vs. this listing operation.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use versus 'aws_events_describe_rule' for detailed single-rule inspection, or when to use 'aws_events_list_event_buses' to discover buses first. No mention of prerequisites 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds value by disclosing what 'full details' encompasses (severity, type, resource, action), giving the agent insight into return content. However, it lacks operational context like rate limits, pagination behavior, or auth requirements beyond what's in the schema.
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 with zero waste. Every element earns its place: 'Get' (verb), 'full details' (scope), 'GuardDuty findings' (resource), and parenthetical fields (return value preview). Perfectly front-loaded.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description partially compensates by previewing return fields. However, for a 4-parameter AWS tool with complex sibling relationships, it should clarify the typical workflow (list → get) and whether this is a read-only 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 100% (all 4 parameters fully documented), establishing a baseline score of 3. The description implies the relationship between finding_ids and the detailed output but does not add syntax, format details, or usage patterns beyond the schema definitions.
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 effectively states the tool retrieves 'full details' for GuardDuty findings and distinguishes this from siblings like 'list_findings' or 'get_findings_statistics' by listing specific return fields (severity, type, resource, action). It lacks explicit sibling naming but implies differentiation through 'full details' scope.
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 (e.g., when to use list_findings first to obtain IDs), nor does it mention prerequisites like needing valid finding_ids from prior list 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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses what data is returned (health, node count, shards), but lacks operational context such as read-only safety, required permissions, error conditions, or AWS API rate limiting considerations.
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 with zero waste. Front-loaded with the action (Get health status) immediately followed by resource identification and specific return value details in parentheses.
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?
Adequately compensates for missing output schema by enumerating return categories (cluster health, node count, shards). However, lacks AWS-specific operational context that would be necessary given this is an infrastructure tool with no annotations covering safety or permissions.
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 100% with clear descriptions for profile, region, and domain_name. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema, which warrants the baseline score of 3.
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?
States specific verb (Get) and resource (OpenSearch domain health) with parenthetical clarification of returned data (cluster health, node count, shards). Implicitly distinguishes from sibling aws_opensearch_describe_domain by focusing specifically on health metrics rather than general domain configuration.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling aws_opensearch_describe_domain, nor does it mention prerequisites like domain existence or required IAM permissions for AWS access.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses what data is returned (master account, feature set, ARN) but omits critical behavioral context: whether this requires AWS Organizations to be enabled, what error occurs if not, that it is read-only (implied by 'Describe' but not explicit), or required IAM permissions.
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. The parenthetical is front-loaded with essential distinguishing information (what 'describe' actually returns). Every word earns its place.
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 simple 2-parameter describe operation, the description is minimally adequate. It compensates for the missing output schema by listing the three key fields returned. However, lacking annotations and behavioral details (auth requirements, preconditions), it meets but does not exceed the minimum viable threshold.
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 coverage is 100% with both profile and region well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, which is acceptable given the complete schema documentation (baseline 3 per rubric).
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 uses a specific verb ('Describe') with clear resource ('AWS Organization'). The parenthetical '(master account, feature set, ARN)' effectively distinguishes this from sibling list operations (list_accounts, list_organizational_units) by indicating it returns the organization's own metadata rather than child 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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools like aws_organizations_list_accounts or aws_organizations_list_roots. While the name implies this retrieves org-level metadata, the description does not clarify relationships between these 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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return payload structure (engine, status, endpoint, size, storage) which helps, but omits safety classification (read-only), pagination behavior, rate limits, or error conditions. 'Describe' implies read-only but explicit confirmation would help.
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?
Two sentences with zero waste: first defines operation, second defines return payload. Perfectly front-loaded and appropriate length for complexity level.
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?
Without output schema, description partially compensates by listing return fields. However, lacks operational context (pagination, max results, throttling) and doesn't clarify that omitting db_instance_identifier returns all instances. Adequate but incomplete for production 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 100%, establishing baseline of 3. Description adds no specific parameter guidance beyond schema (e.g., no examples for filters format, no clarification on optional vs required behavior since all are optional).
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?
States specific verb 'Describe' and resource 'RDS database instances', distinguishing from siblings like aws_docdb_describe_db_instances and aws_rds_describe_db_clusters. Mentions specific return fields (engine, status, endpoint, etc.) clarifying scope. Minor gap: could explicitly mention this retrieves metadata/configuration, not performance metrics.
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 filters vs. db_instance_identifier parameter, or when to prefer this over aws_rds_describe_db_clusters. No mention of required AWS permissions or typical use cases (e.g., inventory vs. troubleshooting).
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?
Without annotations, description carries burden of disclosing read-only nature, which 'List' implies but does not explicitly confirm as safe. Mentions return fields (config, status, endpoint) but omits pagination, error handling (e.g., no clusters), or authentication requirements.
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 action verb, zero waste. Efficiently conveys operation, target resource, and return payload categories.
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?
Adequate for a listing operation with complete schema coverage, mentioning key return fields compensates somewhat for missing output schema. However, lacks behavioral context (safety, pagination) that would be expected given zero annotations.
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 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond schema (e.g., does not clarify that omitting cluster_identifier returns all clusters, though schema covers this).
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?
States specific verb 'List' and resource 'Redshift clusters', and previews return data (configuration, status, endpoint). Distinguishes from sibling parameter/snapshot tools implicitly via resource name, though lacks explicit cross-tool guidance.
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 versus siblings (describe_cluster_parameters, describe_cluster_snapshots) or when to filter by cluster_identifier versus listing all. No mention of pagination behavior implied by max_records 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?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It successfully identifies the mutating nature of the operation and the readonly constraint, but omits critical details about batch atomicity, return values (e.g., change IDs), failure modes, and side effects.
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 consists of two efficient sentences with zero waste. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, while the second sentence provides essential operational constraints 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?
While the input schema is rich with examples, the description provides minimal context for a complex mutation tool. Lacking annotations and output schema, it should disclose more about transaction behavior, validation rules, and the complex nested structure of resource record changes.
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 coverage is 100% and includes detailed descriptions plus a comprehensive JSON example for the 'changes' parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score for high-coverage schemas.
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 specifies the actions (create, update, delete) and target resource (DNS records in Route53 hosted zone). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling read operations like aws_route53_list_resource_record_sets.
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 notes the tool is 'Blocked in --readonly mode', indicating an execution environment constraint, but provides no guidance on when to select this tool versus read-only alternatives or prerequisites such as obtaining the hosted_zone_id.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It successfully discloses the key behavioral filter—that this only returns products currently 'sending findings' (enabled integrations), not all available products. However, it omits read-only safety declarations, pagination behavior, and return structure details given the lack of output schema.
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 no redundant words. Every component earns its place: the action (List), the resource (integrations/products), and the filter condition (sending findings).
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 100% schema coverage for the three optional parameters, the description adequately supports tool selection. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks information about return values, pagination tokens, or IAM permissions needed for a complete invocation picture.
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 100%, providing clear documentation for profile, region, and max_results. The description contributes no additional parameter-specific context (e.g., noting that max_results handles pagination), warranting the baseline score of 3.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Security Hub integrations/products'), and clarifies the scope to only those 'sending findings' (enabled integrations). However, it doesn't explicitly capture the 'enabled for import' nuance present in the function name, slightly weakening differentiation from hypothetical product catalog tools.
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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this versus sibling tools like aws_securityhub_get_findings (which retrieves actual findings) or aws_securityhub_describe_hub (which gets hub configuration). The description stands alone without contextual selection criteria.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals what data categories are returned (delivery attempts, bounces, complaints, rejects) but omits critical behavioral details: the time aggregation period (15-minute intervals), the lookback window (14 days), whether data is near-real-time or delayed, and required IAM permissions.
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 single sentence is efficiently front-loaded with the action verb and resource, immediately followed by the specific metric categories returned. No extraneous words are present and every clause earns its place.
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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description partially compensates by enumerating the return data categories. However, for a statistics retrieval tool, it fails to mention the temporal aggregation granularity or time range limitations, leaving significant 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?
The description makes no mention of the parameters, but with 100% schema description coverage for both optional parameters ('profile' and 'region'), the baseline score of 3 applies as the schema adequately documents inputs without requiring description reinforcement.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('SES sending statistics'), and distinguishes the tool by listing specific metric types (delivery attempts, bounces, complaints, rejects). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'aws_ses_get_send_quota' which retrieves limits rather than historical statistics.
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, nor does it mention prerequisites such as requiring prior email sending activity for statistics to exist. No temporal scope (e.g., 'last 14 days') is indicated to help users understand data availability.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. 'Get' implies read-only operation, and 'full configuration including all rules' adds context about data completeness. However, lacks disclosure of error behavior (e.g., resource not found), rate limits, or specific AWS permissions required.
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 11-word sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded with action verb and specific resource identifier. Every word earns its place.
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 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description partially compensates by mentioning 'full configuration including all rules' to indicate output richness. However, missing prerequisite guidance (Web ACL ID source) and error case documentation for a 5-parameter AWS API call.
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 100%, so baseline score applies. The description does not add parameter-specific context (e.g., that 'scope' determines whether to look in REGIONAL or CLOUDFRONT, or that 'id' and 'name' are both required identifiers).
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?
States specific verb 'Get' and resource 'WAF v2 Web ACL' with scope 'full configuration including all rules'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'aws_wafv2_get_web_acl_for_resource' which also retrieves a Web ACL but by resource association rather than by name/ID.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'aws_wafv2_get_web_acl_for_resource' or the prerequisite of needing the Web ACL ID (typically obtained from 'aws_wafv2_list_web_acls'). No mention of error conditions or required IAM 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?
No annotations provided. Description adds crucial behavioral constraint that query must be 'completed', indicating a state prerequisite. Missing disclosure of pagination behavior (despite max_results parameter), result format/columnar structure, and download size limits inherent to Athena result retrieval.
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 7-word sentence is extremely front-loaded with zero redundancy. However, brevity is excessive given lack of annotations and pagination complexity; one additional sentence for behavioral constraints would improve utility without harming conciseness.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, description successfully identifies the core operation but leaves significant gaps for a paginated data retrieval tool. Should specify result format (CSV, JSON), pagination token handling, and integration with the sibling status-checking tool 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 has 100% description coverage, fully documenting all four parameters including profile/region overrides and max_results. Description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond what schema provides, earning baseline score for high-coverage schemas.
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?
Clear verb 'Get' and resource 'results of a completed Athena query execution' specifies exactly what is retrieved. Distinguishes from sibling 'aws_athena_get_query_execution' by specifying 'results' (data rows) versus execution metadata, though explicit comparison is not stated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Specifies prerequisite state 'completed' implying this should not be called on running queries. However, lacks explicit workflow guidance (e.g., 'use aws_athena_get_query_execution first to verify completion') and does not mention error behavior if called prematurely.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description omits critical behavioral context: AWS authentication requirements, potential costs, pagination behavior, or error conditions (e.g., stack not found).
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, efficiently structured with the parenthetical adding specificity without verbosity. Every word earns its place, though 'detailed info' is slightly generic without the parenthetical clarification.
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?
No output schema exists, so return value documentation falls to the description. While it lists key data categories (parameters, outputs, tags), it lacks structure documentation (nested objects, arrays) or sample output. Acceptable but incomplete given the richness of CloudFormation stack data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the optional nature of stack_name via 'one or all', and the parenthetical explicitly lists what 'detailed info' encompasses (parameters, outputs, tags), providing semantic context not present in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Excellent clarity: specific verb 'Get' + resource 'CloudFormation stacks' + scope 'one or all'. The parenthetical '(parameters, outputs, tags)' specifically distinguishes this from sibling aws_cfn_list_stacks (which returns summaries) and signals the detailed nature of the data returned.
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?
Lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus aws_cfn_list_stacks or aws_cfn_describe_stack_events. The phrase 'one or all' implies optional filtering behavior but does not constitute usage guidelines or prerequisites (e.g., AWS credentials).
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only discloses that it is blocked in readonly mode (implying it's a write operation). Fails to mention critical mutation behaviors: invalidations are asynchronous with propagation delays, incur AWS costs, have limits (3 concurrent per distribution), and return an invalidation ID for tracking.
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?
Two sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose upfront; second provides operational constraint. Every element earns its place.
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?
Mutation tool with side effects (costs, async propagation) and no output schema. Description should disclose return value structure (invalidation ID/status) and operational characteristics ( propagation time, costs) but does not. Relies entirely on parameter schema and name for 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 100% with clear descriptions for all 4 parameters (profile, region, distribution_id, paths). Description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema, which is adequate when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear specific verb ('Create') + resource ('cache invalidation') + target ('CloudFront distribution'). Effectively distinguishes from read-only siblings like aws_cloudfront_list_invalidations and aws_cloudfront_get_distribution.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Mentions '--readonly mode' constraint indicating when the tool cannot be used, but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over TTL expiration or alternative cache busting strategies. Usage is implied by the operation name but not fully contextualized.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It partially compensates by specifying what data fields are returned (domain names, origins, status) since no output schema exists. However, it omits pagination behavior, rate limiting considerations, and confirmation that this is a safe read-only operation.
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 single sentence is efficiently structured with the action first ('List'), followed by resource and return value details. No redundancy or waste is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple operation (list distributions) and lack of output schema, the description reasonably covers the essential return value semantics. However, it could improve by noting that results may be paginated (implied by max_items parameter) or that the operation returns all distributions across the account/profile.
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?
The schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (profile, region, max_items). The tool description mentions no parameters at all, relying entirely on the schema documentation. With complete 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 ('List'), resource ('CloudFront distributions'), and return scope ('domain names, origins, and status'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling 'aws_cloudfront_get_distribution' (single-item retrieval) or clarify when to use listing versus getting a specific distribution.
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 'aws_cloudfront_get_distribution'. It does not mention that all parameters are optional or provide criteria for when filtering by profile/region is necessary.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context about what data is returned ('deployments and events'), but lacks operational details like safety profile (read-only), rate limits, pagination behavior, or AWS credential requirements.
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, efficient sentence of nine words that immediately states the action and scope. Front-loaded with the verb 'Get'. While concise, it avoids tautology and every word earns its place.
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?
Adequate for a describe operation with complete input schema: it identifies the resource type and specific information returned. However, without output schema or annotations, it lacks safety disclosures and operational constraints expected for AWS API 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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage (profile, region, cluster, services all documented), establishing baseline 3. The description does not add parameter semantics, constraints, or relationships (e.g., that services must belong to the specified cluster) beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb phrase ('Get detailed information') and resource ('ECS services'), and explicitly mentions 'deployments and events' to distinguish this detailed retrieval operation from sibling list operations like aws_ecs_list_services.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling alternatives (e.g., aws_ecs_list_services for enumeration or aws_ecs_describe_clusters for cluster details), nor does it mention prerequisites like needing to know cluster names beforehand.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context with '(one per region)' indicating the cardinality of results, but lacks information about required permissions, whether the operation is read-only/safe, or pagination behavior for accounts with many regions.
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 with no waste. The parenthetical '(one per region)' earns its place by providing crucial scope information. Front-loaded with the action verb and resource type.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter list operation with no output schema, the description is adequately complete. The '(one per region)' clause provides essential behavioral context for AWS's regional service architecture. However, lacking output schema, it could benefit from hinting at the return structure (list of strings/IDs).
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 coverage is 100% with both 'profile' and 'region' well-documented in the schema. The description mentions 'in the account' and 'per region' which loosely maps to the parameter concepts, but does not add syntax details, format constraints, or semantic relationships between parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 verb (List), resource (GuardDuty detector IDs), and scope (one per region). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'get_detector' by indicating it returns IDs rather than full objects, and from 'list_findings' by specifying 'detector IDs'. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives for clarity.
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 'get_detector' or 'list_findings', nor does it mention prerequisites such as configuring AWS credentials or permissions required (GuardDuty might need specific IAM 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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It effectively describes the filtering capability (pattern matching) and multi-stream scope, but omits pagination behavior, result structure, read-only safety confirmation, and performance characteristics that would aid invocation decisions.
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?
Two-sentence structure is efficient and front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence ('Useful for...') adds modest value by clarifying use case without significant 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?
Adequate for an 8-parameter tool with complete schema coverage, but gaps remain given the lack of output schema (no return value description) and annotations. Does not address sibling tool relationships or pagination handling for large result sets.
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 100%, providing detailed descriptions for all 8 parameters (e.g., timestamp format, default limit). The description reinforces the filter_pattern and log_stream_names concepts but adds no semantic information beyond what the schema already 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?
Clear verb (Search), resource (CloudWatch log events), and mechanism (filter pattern across log streams). Implicitly distinguishes from sibling aws_logs_get_log_events by emphasizing 'filter pattern' functionality, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides implied usage guidance with 'Useful for searching logs by keyword or pattern,' indicating the primary use case. However, lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use rules or contrast with aws_logs_get_log_events for unfiltered retrieval.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It partially succeeds by indicating the operation is read-only ('Get') and revealing specific output content (NS records, VPCs), but fails to mention error behaviors (e.g., if zone not found), permission requirements, or rate limit considerations.
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 of 11 words with the action verb front-loaded. Every word earns its place by conveying the operation type, resource, and specific returned fields without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description partially compensates by highlighting key return data (NS records and VPCs). For a straightforward read operation, this is reasonably complete, though it could benefit from mentioning other returned fields like configuration details or tags.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no explicit parameter guidance, but the mention of 'hosted zone' implicitly maps to the required hosted_zone_id parameter. No additional syntax or format details are provided beyond 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 ('Get') and resource ('Route53 hosted zone'), and specifies key returned data ('NS records and VPCs'). While it effectively distinguishes from the sibling list_hosted_zones by implying detailed single-resource retrieval versus listing, it does not explicitly mention when to choose this over alternatives like list_resource_record_sets.
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 its siblings, such as aws_route53_list_hosted_zones for discovery or aws_route53_change_resource_record_sets for modifications. It also omits prerequisites like needing the hosted_zone_id from a prior list 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?
With zero annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. The readonly note implies write access is required, but fails to specify overwrite behavior, idempotency, return values, encryption/ACL implications, or error conditions for an operation with significant side effects.
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?
Two sentences with zero redundancy. First sentence establishes purpose; second states operational constraint. 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Significant gaps remain for a 6-parameter mutation tool: no output schema documentation (success indicators, ETag, VersionId), no mention of S3-specific behaviors like versioning implications, ACL defaults, or server-side encryption options that are critical for S3 put operations.
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 100% (all 6 parameters documented). Description adds no semantic clarifications beyond schema (e.g., no syntax hints, format examples, or dependency notes between profile/region), warranting baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb 'Upload' plus resource 'S3 object' precisely identifies the operation. Effectively distinguishes from siblings like aws_s3_get_object (download), aws_s3_delete_objects (remove), and aws_s3_list_objects (enumerate).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides one constraint ('Blocked in --readonly mode') indicating mutability, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus sibling operations (e.g., overwrite scenarios vs. multipart uploads) and omits permission prerequisites.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') and specifies account-level scope and inclusion of 'subscription status' (billing context). However, it omits permission requirements, failure modes (e.g., if Security Hub is not enabled), or rate limit concerns.
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 of appropriate length. Front-loaded with the action verb 'Get'. No redundant or filler text; every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter describe operation with no output schema provided, the description adequately indicates the return value scope (configuration and subscription status). Given the low complexity and complete schema coverage, it is sufficiently 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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage (profile and region are well-documented in the schema). The description adds no semantic information about parameters beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.
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?
States specific verb 'Get' and resources 'Security Hub configuration and subscription status' clearly. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like aws_securityhub_get_findings which retrieve different data types (findings vs hub configuration).
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as the finding-related or standards-related Security Hub siblings. No prerequisites, failure conditions, or 'see also' references 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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Adds valuable context: specifies 'management events' (not data events) and default 90-day window. Missing: permissions requirements, pagination behavior, read-only nature, and 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three efficient sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with purpose ('Look up...'), followed by filtering capabilities, then default time window. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
Adequate for a lookup tool with well-documented schema, but gaps remain: no output schema mentioned, no IAM permission requirements specified, and pagination behavior undocumented. Reasonable given input schema richness but could disclose more behavioral constraints.
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 has 100% description coverage, establishing baseline 3. Description adds semantic value by listing example filter categories (event name, resource type, user name) that map to AttributeKey enum values, helping agents understand lookup_attributes construction.
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?
States specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('CloudTrail management events'). Implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'aws_cloudtrail_describe_trails' by focusing on 'events' versus 'trails', though lacks explicit contrast.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies filtering use cases ('Filter by event name, resource type, user name, etc.') but lacks explicit 'when to use' guidance versus siblings or alternatives. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States read operation but omits critical AWS-specific behaviors: GetMetricData pricing model (per-metric cost), throttling limits, pagination behavior, or that it returns raw data points vs pre-aggregated statistics.
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?
Two sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with core purpose (retrieve metric data), second sentence adds key differentiator (math expressions). Appropriate length for complexity level.
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?
Adequate for a read-only data retrieval tool with 100% schema coverage, but given AWS CloudWatch API complexity and lack of output schema, could benefit from notes on return format (timestamps, values) or cost warnings.
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 coverage is 100% with detailed examples. Description adds semantic value by noting 'math expressions' capability, hinting at the Expression field usage in metric_data_queries, but doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb 'Retrieve' with clear resource 'time-series metric data' and 'CloudWatch metrics'. The mention of 'math expressions' and 'multiple metrics' effectively distinguishes this from sibling aws_cloudwatch_get_metric_statistics (single metric statistics) and aws_cloudwatch_list_metrics (metadata only).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage through capability listing (multiple metrics, math expressions), suggesting when to use this advanced API, but lacks explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' guidance or naming of sibling tool aws_cloudwatch_get_metric_statistics.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It adequately indicates this is a read operation via 'Get' and specifies what data is returned, but lacks details on return format, authentication requirements, or what happens if the pipeline name doesn't exist.
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 of 10 words. Every word earns its place—'full structure' and 'stage configuration' are specific and non-redundant. Front-loaded with the action verb. No waste.
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?
Acceptable for a retrieval tool with 100% input schema coverage. The description indicates what content is returned ('structure and stage configuration'), compensating somewhat for the missing output schema. However, lacks return format details or pagination notes that would help the agent process the response.
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 has 100% description coverage (profile, region, name all documented), establishing baseline. The description mentions 'CodePipeline' which contextualizes the 'name' parameter, but adds no syntax details, formatting requirements, or examples beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Excellent specificity: 'Get' is a clear action verb, 'CodePipeline' identifies the resource, and 'full structure and stage configuration' precisely scopes what is retrieved. This clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_pipeline_state (which returns execution state) and list_pipelines (which returns summaries).
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 provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like list_pipelines (which should be called first to discover pipeline names) or get_pipeline_state. No prerequisites or error handling mentioned.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States 'List' implying read-only, but doesn't confirm safety, disclose return format/schema, pagination behavior, or permission requirements. Minimal behavioral disclosure for a read operation.
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 of 9 words. Front-loaded with action and resource. No redundancy or waste. Appropriate density for the tool's scope.
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?
Adequate for a 5-parameter discovery tool with well-documented schema. Covers primary use cases (listing by filesystem or VPC). Could improve by noting that parameters are optional filters or explaining behavior when called without filters (returns all mount targets in account?).
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline applies. Description mentions 'file system or VPC subnet' which conceptually maps to file_system_id and vpc_id parameters, adding context about their relationship. However, doesn't mention mount_target_id parameter for singleton lookups.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'List', clear resource 'EFS mount targets', and specifies scope 'for a file system or VPC subnet'. Distinct from sibling aws_efs_describe_file_systems (which returns file system metadata, not mount targets) and aws_efs_describe_access_points.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage context by mentioning 'for a file system or VPC subnet', indicating it filters by these resources. However, lacks explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites (e.g., needing one filter parameter), or alternatives for different query patterns (e.g., querying by mount_target_id).
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. 'Get' implies read-only but doesn't explicitly confirm safety or disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or return format structure despite having no output schema.
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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. Examples in parentheses efficiently communicate event types without verbosity.
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?
Adequate for a filtered list operation with well-documented schema, but lacking output format description or mention that all parameters are optional, which is significant given no output schema exists.
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 has 100% description coverage with clear parameter definitions. Description adds conceptual context about what 'events' means but doesn't add specific guidance on parameter interactions (e.g., that all parameters are optional).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb 'Get' with clear resource 'ElastiCache events' and concrete examples (maintenance, failover, scaling). Effectively distinguishes from sibling describe_* tools that return resource configurations rather than operational events.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Examples (maintenance, failover, scaling) provide implicit context for operational monitoring use cases, but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over describe_cache_clusters or describe_replication_groups for troubleshooting.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It lists example target types (Lambda, SQS) but fails to disclose safety characteristics (read-only vs destructive), pagination behavior, or error handling when rules don't exist.
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 with zero waste. Front-loaded with action verb and key nouns. Every word earns its place by conveying the exact operation and resource type.
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 100% schema coverage and the straightforward nature of the operation, the description is minimally viable. However, with no output schema or annotations, it could improve by indicating what information is returned about targets (ARNs? configuration?) or mentioning pagination limits.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds valuable semantic context by clarifying this is specifically for 'EventBridge' rules and giving examples of target types (Lambda, SQS) that help interpret the 'rule' parameter's domain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb (List) with clear resource (targets) and scope (attached to an EventBridge rule). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like aws_events_list_rules (lists rules) and aws_events_describe_rule (describes rule configuration) by explicitly focusing on 'targets'.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative tools are mentioned. While the name implies usage context, the description does not state prerequisites (e.g., needing the rule name first) or distinguish when to use this versus describe_rule if targets are included there.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It effectively defines the scope of the operation by listing what configuration elements are retrieved (source, destination, buffering, compression, status), which adds transparency beyond the tool name. However, it omits operational details like required IAM permissions or rate limiting implications.
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, efficiently structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Get detailed config') and uses a colon-delimited list to specify scope. Every element earns its place; no repetition of structured data or redundant phrasing.
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 100% input schema coverage but no output schema or annotations, the description adequately compensates by detailing expected return content (the five config aspects). However, gaps remain: no mention of error conditions, required IAM permissions, or explicit differentiation from the sibling list 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 100% for all three parameters (profile, region, delivery_stream_name). The description provides the baseline score of 3, as it does not add additional semantic context, parameter relationships, or formatting guidance beyond what the schema already clearly documents.
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 uses specific action verbs ('Get detailed config') and identifies the resource ('Firehose delivery stream'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'list_delivery_streams' by emphasizing 'detailed config' and enumerating specific aspects (source, destination, buffering, compression, status), though it could more explicitly differentiate the use case.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when/when-not guidance or direct sibling comparison is provided. However, the specific enumeration of returned configuration aspects (source, destination, etc.) implicitly signals appropriate usage contexts—use when these specific details are needed versus a simple list.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It explains the DryRun behavior for readonly mode but fails to mention critical behavioral aspects: that invocations incur costs, security implications of executing arbitrary code, sync vs async behavior differences, or what return values to expect.
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?
Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose, and the second adds specific behavioral context about readonly mode. Every word earns its place.
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 5-parameter tool with side effects and no output schema, the description covers the basic invocation pattern but leaves significant gaps regarding cost implications, execution guarantees, error handling, and the shape of returned execution results.
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 100% schema description coverage, the schema sufficiently documents all parameters. The description mentions 'InvocationType=DryRun' which adds context beyond the enum values (RequestResponse/Event) in the schema, but doesn't elaborate on payload format or profile selection criteria.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Invoke') and resource ('Lambda function') that clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like aws_lambda_get_function (metadata) and aws_lambda_list_functions (enumeration). The first sentence alone provides clear purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions '--readonly mode' and explains it validates permissions without executing, which provides one usage context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use RequestResponse vs Event, or when to prefer this tool over the generic aws_execute sibling.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully adds workflow context (navigating OU trees) but omits other behavioral traits: it doesn't indicate this is read-only/safe, doesn't mention that AWS currently limits organizations to one root, and provides no hints about the return structure since no output schema 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?
Extremely efficient at 12 words. Front-loaded with the action, zero redundancy, and the parenthetical clause earns its place by providing crucial workflow context without clutter.
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 no output schema, the description should ideally characterize the return value (Root ID) needed for subsequent `list_organizational_units` calls. However, for a simple list operation with 100% parameter coverage and clear AWS terminology, the description is minimally adequate.
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 100% for the 2 parameters (profile, region), establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond what's in the schema, but doesn't need to given the high 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 provides a specific verb ('List') and resource ('root(s) of the AWS Organization'), and the parenthetical '(needed to navigate the OU tree)' effectively distinguishes this from siblings like `aws_organizations_describe_organization` or `aws_organizations_list_accounts` by clarifying its role as the hierarchy entry point.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context ('needed to navigate the OU tree') suggesting it's a prerequisite for OU traversal, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings like `aws_organizations_list_organizational_units`, or whether this is always the first step in OU discovery.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. Successfully adds aggregation context (findings sourced from multiple AWS security services), but omits critical behavioral details like pagination behavior, API limits, or explicit read-only classification.
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?
Two well-structured sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with the core operation, second sentence adds valuable aggregation context 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?
Reasonably complete given the 100% schema coverage, but gaps remain: no output schema is provided and the description doesn't explain return values or pagination (relevant given max_results parameter), nor does it clarify relationship to the findings_summary sibling.
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 has 100% description coverage with detailed examples (e.g., ASFF filter structure). Description mentions 'optional filters' generally but adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already documents, meeting baseline expectations for high-coverage schemas.
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?
States specific verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'Security Hub findings'. The aggregation mention ('from GuardDuty, Inspector, Macie...') effectively distinguishes from service-specific siblings like aws_guardduty_get_findings, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from aws_securityhub_get_findings_summary.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides implied usage guidance through the aggregation concept (suggests using for consolidated cross-service findings), but lacks explicit when/when-not recommendations or named alternatives.
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?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies read-only behavior via 'Get' and lists the three specific return values, but lacks IAM permission requirements (ses:GetSendQuota), error conditions (e.g., unconfigured SES), or API rate limit warnings.
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 efficient sentence using colon structure (action:return-values). No redundancy or filler, though the extreme brevity precludes inclusion of usage context or operational warnings that would be helpful for an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description adequately previews the three specific metrics returned. Only missing operational details like required IAM permissions to determine if the call will succeed.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage for both optional parameters (profile, region). The description offers no additional parameter guidance, syntax, or examples, but baseline 3 applies since the schema is fully self-documenting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the specific action ('Get') and resource ('SES sending quota'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'aws_ses_send_email' or 'aws_ses_get_send_statistics' by specifying it retrieves quota metrics (max rate, 24h limits) rather than sending mail or returning statistics.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'aws_ses_get_send_statistics' (which returns different data), nor any mention of prerequisites like verified identities or AWS authentication requirements.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. While 'List' implies read-only behavior, the description lacks details about AWS-specific pagination, throttling considerations, required IAM permissions (tag:GetTagValues), or behavior when the key has no values.
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 format with zero redundancy. Every word earns its place - 'List' (action), 'all values' (scope), 'for a specific tag key' (filter), 'across resources' (domain). Perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized.
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?
Adequate for basic invocation given the simple 3-parameter schema, but incomplete for AWS context. Lacks mention of the underlying Resource Groups Tagging API, pagination token handling (implied by 'all' but not explained), or output format details necessitated by the absence of an output 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 coverage is 100% with all three parameters (profile, region, key) fully documented. The description mentions 'specific tag key' which aligns with the key parameter, but adds no additional semantic context (e.g., case sensitivity, allowed characters) beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verb 'List' with clear resource scope ('values used for a specific tag key across resources'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling aws_tagging_get_tag_keys (which lists keys) and aws_tagging_get_resources (which returns resources) through precise resource targeting.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through the required 'key' parameter and the phrase 'for a specific tag key', suggesting it follows tag key discovery. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites (e.g., needing tag permissions), or named alternatives.
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?
No annotations provided, so description must carry full behavioral burden. Discloses the filtering capability (by attached VPC) but omits explicit read-only assurance, pagination behavior, or required AWS permissions. 'Describe' implies read-only but doesn't confirm safety explicitly.
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 (7 words) with zero waste. Front-loaded with verb and resource, filtering clause follows naturally. Every word earns its place.
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?
Adequate for a simple 3-parameter describe operation with full schema coverage. Lacking output schema, description could mention read-only nature or typical use cases (e.g., finding IGWs for VPC connectivity). Sufficient but minimal.
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 100% (all 3 parameters well-documented). Description mentions 'attached VPC' which aligns with vpc_id parameter semantics, but adds no syntax details, validation rules, or examples beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score for high 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?
Clear verb ('Describe') and specific resource ('internet gateways') that distinguishes from sibling tools like aws_vpc_describe_nat_gateways or aws_vpc_describe_vpcs. However, 'Describe' relies on AWS API familiarity without explaining what information is returned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides implied usage by mentioning the optional VPC filter ('optionally filtered by attached VPC'), which hints at when to use the vpc_id parameter. Lacks explicit when-not guidance or references to related tools like aws_vpc_describe_vpcs for VPC-level details.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It qualifies the scope with 'recent' (implying time-boundedness) and suggests read-only nature via 'Get', but omits critical details like pagination behavior, what 'recent' specifically means (e.g., last 24 hours vs. last N events), rate limits, or the structure of returned events.
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 compact sentence with purpose stated first and usage context parenthetically appended. Every word earns its place with no redundancy. Slightly constrained by the parenthetical format which could be integrated more smoothly, but 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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description provides minimal viable context for an AWS API tool. It identifies the resource and primary use case but lacks detail on return values, pagination tokens, or the chronological nature of the results that would help an agent handle the response correctly.
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 100%, with all three parameters (profile, region, stack_name) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage establishes a baseline of 3.
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 uses specific verb 'Get' with resource 'events' for CloudFormation, making the purpose clear. It distinguishes from sibling 'aws_cfn_describe_stacks' by specifying 'events' rather than stack metadata, though it could explicitly clarify the difference between describing stacks versus retrieving their event history.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit context for when to use the tool via the parenthetical '(useful for debugging deployments)', indicating its purpose for troubleshooting failed or in-progress stack changes. However, lacks explicit alternatives (e.g., when to use aws_cfn_describe_stacks instead) or exclusion criteria.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description adequately discloses return values ('Returns instance details including ID, type, state, IPs, and tags') which substitutes for the missing output schema. However, it omits operational details such as pagination behavior, safety confirmation (read-only nature), or authentication requirements that annotations would typically 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 efficiently structured in three sentences: purpose declaration, input/filtering capabilities, and output specification. There is no redundant information or wasted words; each sentence earns its place by conveying distinct information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, the description appropriately documents the return structure. It covers the essential filter mechanisms for an EC2 describe operation. However, given the complexity of AWS operations and the presence of a potentially dangerous sibling tool (`manage_instances`), it could benefit from explicit safety confirmation or pagination details.
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 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters clearly. The description adds marginal semantic value by mapping 'filters' to concrete examples (state, tags), but does not elaborate on parameter interactions, syntax beyond the schema's provided JSON example, or the optional nature of all parameters.
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 (Describe) and resource (EC2 instances), and lists specific filterable attributes (IDs, state, tags). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this read-only tool from its sibling `aws_ec2_manage_instances`, leaving the agent to infer the difference from naming conventions alone.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage patterns by listing filter options (instance IDs, state, tags), suggesting when to use specific parameters. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use this tool or when to prefer `aws_ec2_manage_instances` instead, and does not clarify the relationship between `instance_ids` and `filters` parameters.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the DryRun=True behavior for readonly mode, which is crucial safety information. However, it omits other behavioral details like async execution nature, idempotency guarantees, or what the response contains.
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?
Two sentences with no waste: the first states the core purpose immediately, and the second provides essential safety context about dry-run behavior. 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?
As a mutation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the safety mechanism (DryRun) but should ideally explain what successful execution returns or failure modes look like. Sufficient but with gaps regarding the operation results.
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 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions the action values (start, stop, reboot) which aligns with the schema enum but doesn't add syntax, format examples, or inter-parameter constraints beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verbs (start, stop, reboot) and identifies the exact resource (EC2 instances). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling describe tools like aws_ec2_describe_instances by emphasizing state-changing actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the dry-run behavior for permission validation, which provides some usage context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus read-only alternatives or prerequisites like instance ID discovery.
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?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the specific data returned (including security-relevant fields like vulnerability counts), but fails to indicate this is a safe read-only operation, lacks mention of AWS API rate limits, and doesn't describe error cases like missing repositories or images.
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 efficiently front-loaded with verb and resource, followed by a colon-separated list of return fields. Zero redundancy; every word earns its place by conveying specific metadata capabilities.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema exists, the description appropriately compensates by listing specific return fields. However, lacking annotations and any mention of AWS credential requirements or pagination behavior (despite max_results parameter), it falls slightly short of complete behavioral context for an AWS API 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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters including the image_ids object structure and profile/region conventions. The description implies these parameters by referencing 'ECR images' but adds no semantic detail beyond the schema's existing documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Get detailed metadata'), the resource ('ECR images'), and enumerates exact return fields (size, push date, scan status, vulnerability counts). This distinguishes it from sibling 'aws_ecr_list_images' which implies a simpler enumeration without rich metadata.
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 siblings like 'aws_ecr_list_images' or 'aws_ecr_describe_repositories', nor does it mention that image_ids filtering is optional (can describe all images in repository) or required authentication prerequisites.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It adds valuable domain context explaining that access points have 'path and permissions' attributes and serve as 'application-specific entry points,' which helps the agent understand the resource model. However, it lacks operational details such as pagination behavior, throttling considerations, or default result limits.
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 efficient sentence with zero waste. Parenthetical content adds essential context without clutter. Information is front-loaded with the action verb, making it immediately clear this is a list operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only list operation with 100% parameter schema coverage and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It appropriately explains the conceptual nature of access points (application-specific entry points) which aids resource identification, though it could benefit from noting pagination behavior implied by max_results.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage with clear documentation for all four parameters (profile, region, file_system_id, max_results). With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to repeat parameter details already well-documented in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'List' with resource 'EFS access points' and parenthetically defines what they are (application-specific entry points with path and permissions). Clearly distinguishes from siblings aws_efs_describe_file_systems and aws_efs_describe_mount_targets by specifying the distinct resource type and its characteristics.
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?
Description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it explain filtering strategies (e.g., when to use file_system_id parameter vs listing all). No prerequisites or contextual conditions are specified.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It successfully discloses return attributes (size, throughput mode, lifecycle state), but omits behavioral details like pagination behavior (despite max_items parameter), cost/performance implications of listing all EFS systems, or error conditions.
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 9-word sentence with action verb front-loaded. Every word earns its place: identifies resource type and specific return attributes without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 100% schema coverage and explicit mention of return attributes (compensating for missing output schema), description is adequate for tool selection. Minor gap: lacks pagination behavior explanation despite max_items parameter.
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 has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all 4 parameters (profile, region, file_system_id, max_items). Description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, earning baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'List' with explicit resource 'EFS file systems' and distinguishes from siblings (e.g., aws_efs_describe_access_points, aws_efs_describe_mount_targets) by clearly targeting file systems specifically rather than access points or mount targets.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use the file_system_id filter versus returning all systems, nor when to prefer this over sibling EFS tools like aws_efs_describe_access_points. No mention of use cases or prerequisites.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature via 'Describe' and lists key return fields, but omits behavioral details like pagination behavior (how max_records functions), throttling considerations, or whether omitting replication_group_id returns all groups versus erroring.
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?
Two sentences with zero waste. The first front-loads the action and resource; the second efficiently describes the return payload. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or generic filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema, the description appropriately compensates by detailing the return structure (endpoints, node groups, failover settings). It adequately covers a read-only discovery tool's needs, though mentioning pagination or the 'list vs get one' behavior when replication_group_id is omitted would strengthen 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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all four parameters (profile, region, replication_group_id, max_records). The description does not add additional semantic detail like parameter interdependencies, valid ID formats, or that leaving replication_group_id empty returns a list rather than a specific record, meeting the baseline expectation.
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 uses a specific verb ('Describe') and resource ('ElastiCache Redis replication groups') and adds helpful context with '(clusters with replicas)'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'describe_cache_clusters' (individual nodes) and 'describe_serverless_caches' by specifying the exact topology, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by detailing what it returns ('primary/replica endpoints, node groups, and failover settings'), suggesting when to use it (when you need topology/failover data). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'describe_cache_clusters' or prerequisites like requiring the replication group ID.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. 'Get' implies read-only operation but lacks explicit safety confirmation, error behavior (e.g., what happens if ARN is invalid), or pagination details. Does not mention what health states are returned (healthy, unhealthy, etc.).
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 of 10 words with action front-loaded. No redundancy or tangential information. Every word earns its place by conveying the core operation, scope, and target resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a read operation with 100% parameter schema coverage. Clearly identifies the AWS service (ELBv2) operation via naming and describes the retrieval scope. Missing only output format details and specific health state values, but acceptable for a describe tool without output 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 has 100% description coverage (profile, region, target_group_arn all documented). Description mentions 'target group' which loosely maps to target_group_arn parameter, but adds no syntax details or examples beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 appropriate for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verb 'Get' with clear resources 'health status' and 'targets registered in a target group'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling aws_elbv2_describe_target_groups (which describes group configuration) by specifying 'health status' of the targets within the 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 explicit guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like describe_target_groups. No mention of prerequisites such as needing to obtain the target_group_arn from another operation first, or common usage patterns.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses what data is returned via the attribute list, but omits operational details such as whether this requires specific MWAA read permissions, rate limiting, or that it is a non-destructive read operation.
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 sentence structured with the action first ('Get detailed MWAA environment info') followed by a colon-separated list of specific attributes. Every element earns its place with zero redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema exists, the description adequately compensates by listing specific return attributes. With 100% input schema coverage and no annotations, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and output shape, though it could mention authentication/authorization requirements.
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 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description implies the 'name' parameter identifies the specific environment to retrieve, but adds no syntax details, example values, or format constraints beyond what the schema already 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 uses specific verb 'Get' with resource 'MWAA environment' and enumerates specific attributes returned (Airflow version, DAG S3 path, etc.), clearly indicating detailed retrieval. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling aws_mwaa_list_environments despite implying it through the detailed attribute list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through the enumerated output attributes (use when you need these specific details), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus the list_environments sibling or prerequisites like IAM 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the grouping behavior (by severity with specific levels), but omits read-only safety, idempotency, or AWS API rate limit considerations. No mention of what happens if no findings exist.
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, dense sentence (12 words). Front-loaded with verb 'Get'. Every word earns its place—'count summary' distinguishes from raw findings, and severity levels preview the output structure without verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, the description adequately hints at return structure by listing severity buckets. Lacks mention that all parameters are optional (implied by schema) or that AWS credentials are required.
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 has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all 3 parameters (profile, region, record_state). The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Excellent specificity: states exact action (Get), resource (Security Hub findings), and aggregation method (count summary by severity). Distinguishes from sibling aws_securityhub_get_findings (which returns individual findings) by emphasizing 'count summary'.
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 summary view versus the detailed aws_securityhub_get_findings. No mention of when to filter by ACTIVE vs ARCHIVED record_state, or prerequisites like Security Hub being enabled in the account.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. 'Get' implies read-only behavior, and listing return attributes helps, but lacks disclosure of AWS permission requirements (e.g., sns:GetTopicAttributes), potential throttling, or error conditions (e.g., TopicNotFound).
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 with high information density. Front-loaded action ('Get attributes'), specific resource ('SNS topic'), and immediately follows with colon-separated examples of returned data. Zero wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite lacking an output schema, the description compensates by enumerating specific returned attributes (ARN, display name, etc.), giving callers clear expectations of the data payload. Adequate for a standard AWS describe/get 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 coverage is 100% with all three parameters (profile, region, topic_arn) well-described. The description mentions 'SNS topic' implying the topic_arn parameter but adds no additional semantic guidance beyond the schema definitions.
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?
Clear specific verb ('Get') and resource ('attributes of an SNS topic') with concrete examples (ARN, display name, subscription count, policy). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling 'aws_sns_list_topics' in the description text.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage context through the required 'topic_arn' parameter and the list of returned attributes, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternative tools like the list_topics variant.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate what the tool returns (Web ACL object, ARN, or association metadata), error behavior when no Web ACL is attached, or whether this is a read-only operation (though implied by 'Get').
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 with no waste. However, given the complete lack of annotations and output schema, it is slightly too terse—it should include one additional clause about error behavior or return value structure to be fully appropriate 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?
As a getter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what happens when the resource has no associated Web ACL. It provides the core purpose and supported resource types but leaves critical operational questions unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by front-loading the valid resource types (ALB, API GW, AppSync) in the main description text, reinforcing the `resource_arn` parameter constraints even though they are also documented in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource (Web ACL) and scope (associated with an AWS resource). The parenthetical list of supported resource types (ALB, API GW, AppSync) effectively distinguishes this from the sibling tool `aws_wafv2_get_web_acl` (which would retrieve by Web ACL ID/ARN instead of resource association).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While the description implies usage by listing supported resource types (ALB, API Gateway, AppSync), it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling `aws_wafv2_get_web_acl`. It does not state prerequisites like requiring the resource ARN format or what to do if no Web ACL is associated.
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?
Adds valuable output transformation detail ('deserialized as plain JSON objects') absent from annotations, indicating DynamoDB typed JSON is converted to plain objects. However, misses critical DynamoDB behaviors: pagination/LastEvaluatedKey, 1MB result limits, consumed capacity, and eventually consistent reads vs strong consistency options.
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?
Two well-structured sentences with zero waste. First sentence establishes operation and mechanism; second sentence discloses output format. Information density is high with no filler 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?
Adequate for basic operation given 100% schema coverage, but gaps remain for a complex 10-parameter query tool without output schema: missing pagination behavior, filter expression application timing (post-query), and index usage details. Sufficient to invoke but not to handle result sets optimally.
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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions including examples. Description references 'key condition expression' reinforcing the main parameter purpose, but does not add semantic details beyond what schema already provides. Baseline 3 appropriate for high-coverage schemas.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb 'Query' + resource 'DynamoDB table' + mechanism 'key condition expression' clearly identifies the operation. Implicitly distinguishes from sibling aws_dynamodb_scan by emphasizing key conditions (vs full scan) and from describe_table by focusing on data retrieval vs metadata.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage scenario through 'key condition expression' (suggests use when partition key is known), but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance comparing to aws_dynamodb_scan or stating requirements like mandatory partition key conditions. No explicit alternatives named.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully indicates the destructive nature ('Delete') and the runtime mode constraint ('--readonly mode'), but lacks details on partial failure handling, idempotency, or irreversibility warnings typical for destructive operations.
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?
Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core action, and the second sentence provides the critical operational constraint. Every word earns its place with no 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?
For a destructive operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides minimum viable coverage by stating the action and the readonly constraint. However, it lacks safety context (irreversibility warnings) or return value description that would be expected for a delete 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 100%, with all four parameters (profile, region, bucket, keys) fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema (only implying quantity via 'one or more'), warranting the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Delete') with clear resource ('objects from an S3 bucket') and scope ('one or more'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like aws_s3_get_object, aws_s3_list_objects, and aws_s3_put_object through the explicit 'Delete' action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides one explicit usage constraint ('Blocked in --readonly mode'), which functions as a when-not-to-use guideline. However, it lacks alternatives or prerequisites (e.g., suggesting verification via list_objects first), keeping it at implied usage guidance rather than comprehensive guidelines.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden for this mutation operation. It successfully communicates the critical safety constraint (--readonly mode), but omits other behavioral details such as rate limits, delivery idempotency, synchronous vs asynchronous behavior, or cost implications that would aid an agent in invoking the tool safely.
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 consists of two efficient sentences totaling nine words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, while the second conveys a critical runtime constraint. No redundancy or filler content is 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 complete parameter schema (100% coverage) and straightforward purpose, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a mutation operation with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks completeness regarding error handling, return values, or AWS-specific constraints (e.g., sending limits, identity verification prerequisites).
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage (profile, region, source, etc. are all well-documented in the schema). The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond the schema, which aligns with the baseline score of 3 for high-coverage schemas.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Send' with clear resource 'email' and context 'via SES'. It effectively distinguishes this from sibling SES tools (aws_ses_get_*, aws_ses_list_*) which are read-only operations, making it immediately clear this is the action tool for sending.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides one explicit constraint ('Blocked in --readonly mode'), indicating when the tool cannot be used. However, it offers no guidance on when to prefer this over similar messaging tools like aws_sns_publish or aws_sqs_send_message, nor does it mention prerequisites like AWS credentials or SES verification requirements.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully communicates the write-operation nature via the readonly mode constraint, but omits other critical behavioral details such as fan-out delivery semantics, message durability guarantees, retry behavior, or what constitutes a successful return 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 consists of exactly two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence establishes purpose immediately; the second sentence provides the critical environmental constraint. Every word earns its place in guiding agent selection.
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 this is a 5-parameter write operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description meets minimum viability by stating core purpose and the readonly constraint. However, for a destructive/operational tool, it should ideally disclose success indicators, potential errors (e.g., topic not found), or delivery semantics to be fully 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 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'target ARN' which clarifies that the topic_arn parameter can accept SNS target ARNs (for platform endpoints), adding slight semantic value beyond the schema's 'SNS topic ARN' description, but does not elaborate on parameter interactions or validation rules.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Publish') and resource ('SNS topic or target ARN'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling read operations like aws_sns_list_topics or aws_sns_get_topic_attributes. It accurately scopes the operation to messaging functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides one explicit constraint ('Blocked in --readonly mode'), which functions as a when-not-to-use signal. However, it lacks positive guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like aws_sqs_send_message or aws_lambda_invoke, and does not mention prerequisites such as topic existence or IAM 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?
With no annotations provided, description carries full disclosure burden. 'Purge' implies destructive deletion, and readonly constraint is documented. Missing: async behavior confirmation, IAM permission requirements, whether queue attributes/configuration persist after purge, or irreversibility warnings.
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?
Two sentences, zero waste. First sentence establishes purpose immediately; second sentence provides critical operational constraint. Appropriately sized for tool 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?
Adequate for a 3-parameter destructive operation with no output schema. Covers core action and readonly constraint. Could be strengthened with AWS-specific context (IAM permissions required, that queue metadata is preserved) given zero annotations.
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 100%, establishing baseline of 3. Description does not mention parameters explicitly, but schema adequately documents profile, region, and queue_url without needing elaboration in description text.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear specific verb ('purge') + resource ('SQS queue') + scope ('all messages'). Distinct from siblings like aws_sqs_receive_message (retrieval) and aws_sqs_send_message (creation) through precise terminology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides operational constraint ('Blocked in --readonly mode'), indicating execution environment requirements. However, lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer purge over individual message deletion or receive+delete 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds the critical behavioral constraint about --readonly mode blocking, but omits other important behavioral details like return values (e.g., MessageId), message size limits, or failure modes.
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?
Two sentences with zero waste: the first establishes purpose, the second states a critical runtime constraint. Every word earns its place and the description is appropriately front-loaded.
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 100% schema coverage, the description meets minimum viability, but gaps remain for a write operation: no output schema description, no mention of SQS-specific constraints (256KB limit, FIFO requirements), and no differentiation from sibling messaging 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics (e.g., syntax examples, validation rules) beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the specific action ('Send a message') and target resource ('SQS queue'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like aws_sqs_receive_message, aws_sqs_purge_queue, and aws_sqs_list_queues.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides one constraint ('Blocked in --readonly mode'), indicating when the tool cannot be used, but lacks positive guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like aws_sns_publish or aws_lambda_invoke for messaging.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the upsert nature ('Create or update') and the runtime constraint ('Blocked in --readonly mode'). Missing details on permissions requirements, versioning behavior, or return values.
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?
Two sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded with the core action, followed by operational constraint. Every word earns its place.
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?
Adequate but minimal for a 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema. Relies heavily on the complete input schema. Could benefit from mentioning success indicators, parameter versioning implications, or AWS credentials requirements.
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 100% schema description coverage, the structured schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no explicit parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline score for high-coverage schemas.
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?
Clear verb-resource combination ('Create or update an SSM parameter') that accurately describes the upsert operation. Distinguishes reasonably from read-focused siblings (aws_ssm_get_parameter, aws_ssm_describe_parameters) through the write verbs, though it doesn't explicitly reference them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides critical environmental constraint ('Blocked in --readonly mode') telling agents when the tool will fail. However, lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. read-only alternatives or AWS Secrets Manager for sensitive data.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Verb 'List' implies read-only operation, and specific return fields (capacity, health) disclose what data is retrieved. However, lacks details on pagination behavior, AWS API rate limits, or authentication requirements.
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 with zero waste. Verb-front-loaded construction ('List Auto Scaling Groups...') immediately clarifies action and scope. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite lacking output schema, description compensates by listing key return value categories (capacity, health, instance details). Complete for a read-only list tool, though could mention AWS API-specific behaviors like pagination tokens.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage (all 4 parameters documented), establishing baseline score. Description does not discuss parameters, but none are left undocumented given comprehensive schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb 'List' with clear resource 'Auto Scaling Groups' and detailed scope (capacity, health, instance details). Effectively distinguishes from sibling ASG tools like describe_scaling_activities or describe_launch_configurations by specifying exactly what data is returned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides implied usage through specification of return data (capacity, health, instances), suggesting when to use this versus siblings. However, lacks explicit 'when to use' statements or named alternatives for different ASG 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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It adds valuable context by defining what 'scaling activities' means (scale-out/in, failures) and hints at time-boundedness ('recent'), but omits permission requirements, pagination behavior, and the exact time window for 'recent'.
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 action verb, zero redundancy. Parenthetical efficiently clarifies activity types without wasting words. Every element earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 100% schema coverage and 4 straightforward parameters, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose. No output schema exists, so explanation of return structure isn't expected here, though mentioning pagination or default time ranges 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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description mentions 'recent' which loosely contextualizes max_records, but adds no syntax, format, or cross-parameter dependency details beyond the schema baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Excellent specificity: verb 'Get', resource 'scaling activities', scope 'for an Auto Scaling Group', with parenthetical examples ('scale-out/in events, failures') that clearly distinguish it from sibling ASG tools that return configuration (describe_auto_scaling_groups) or policies (describe_scaling_policies).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage context by specifying content type ('activities' vs configuration), but lacks explicit 'when to use this instead of describe_auto_scaling_groups' guidance or prerequisites like required IAM 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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return contents (engine, node type, status, endpoint, configuration) which is valuable, but omits safety declarations (read-only vs destructive), pagination behavior, or permission requirements.
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?
Two sentences with zero waste: first defines the operation and resource, second defines the return payload. Appropriately front-loaded and scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 optional, well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately compensates by listing return fields. Missing only minor behavioral context (permissions, rate limits) for a complete picture.
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 100%, establishing baseline 3. The description does not augment parameter semantics (e.g., explaining that cache_cluster_id filters to a single cluster, or that max_records handles pagination).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb 'Describe' + resource 'ElastiCache clusters' with scope '(Redis/Memcached)'. The description clearly targets provisioned cache clusters, implicitly distinguishing from siblings handling replication groups, serverless caches, or events by specifying the exact 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Mentions supported engines (Redis/Memcached) providing implied scope guidance, but lacks explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' guidance. Does not clarify when to use this versus aws_elasticache_describe_replication_groups for clustered Redis setups.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It valuably discloses returned data (DNS names and state) but omits safety profile (read-only), pagination behavior, or filtering behavior implied by optional array parameters.
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 action verb and resource, followed by key output fields. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given well-documented schema and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and return value highlights. Minor gap: lacks explicit indication that this is a safe read operation or filtering capabilities notes.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage (profile, region, ARNs, names), establishing baseline 3. The description does not add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, nor does it need to given the comprehensive schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verb 'List' with specific resource types (ALB, NLB, Gateway Load Balancers) and distinguishes from sibling tools like describe_listeners and describe_target_groups by clearly stating it operates on Load Balancers themselves.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by specifying the exact resource type (distinguishing from listeners/target groups siblings), but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternative tool recommendations.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the default scope behavior (customer-managed only), but omits other key behavioral traits like pagination/truncation behavior, rate limiting, or explicit read-only safety confirmation.
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?
Two tightly constructed sentences with zero waste. The first establishes purpose; the second immediately addresses the most important parameter (scope) and its default value. Well front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a straightforward list operation with four parameters and no output schema. Covers the essential functionality and the key behavioral quirk (default scope). Could be improved with pagination/truncation notes but complete enough for correct 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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds semantic clarity by mapping 'Local' to 'customer-managed' and explaining the default behavior, though it largely restates schema information.
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?
Clearly states the specific action (List) and resource (IAM policies), including the critical behavioral detail that it defaults to customer-managed only. Does not explicitly differentiate from sibling IAM list tools (aws_iam_list_roles, aws_iam_list_users), though the resource type is distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context for the tool's primary filtering dimension by explaining the three scope options (default 'Local'/'AWS'/'All') and when to use each. Lacks explicit comparison to alternative tools, but the scope guidance effectively constrains appropriate usage.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. Lists return content categories (transparency about output) but omits safety classification (read-only vs destructive), IAM permission requirements, or rate limits. 'Get' implies read-only but should be explicit.
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 efficient sentence with colon-separated list of return categories. Front-loaded purpose ('Get detailed configuration') with zero redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without output schema, the description adequately compensates by listing major configuration categories returned (cluster, EBS, VPC, endpoints, version, status). Missing only explicit safety/read-only classification and potential error conditions.
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 100% (all three parameters well-documented in schema). Description focuses on return values rather than parameter semantics, which is acceptable when schema carries the load. No additional parameter guidance (e.g., format constraints) added by description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Excellent specificity: uses verb 'Get' with resource 'OpenSearch domain configuration' and distinguishes scope via detailed return value list (cluster config, EBS, VPC, etc.). Clearly differentiates from sibling 'aws_opensearch_describe_domain_health' (health vs configuration) and 'aws_opensearch_list_domain_names' (names only).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides implied usage guidance by enumerating specific configuration categories returned, signalling when to use this over health checks. However, lacks explicit comparison to siblings (e.g., 'use this when you need configuration, use health tool for status').
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully documents the pagination behavior (1000 object limit, continuation_token usage) but omits explicit safety classification (read-only nature) and error behaviors (e.g., bucket not found scenarios).
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?
Two sentences with zero waste: first establishes purpose and filtering, second establishes limits and pagination. Information is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 6-parameter list operation with 100% schema coverage, the description covers core purpose, filtering, pagination mechanics, and result limits. Missing output format details (since no output schema exists), but the count constraint provides sufficient behavioral context for 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'prefix filter' and 'continuation_token for pagination' which provides contextual mapping, but does not add syntax details or format constraints beyond the comprehensive schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verb 'List' with resource 'objects in an S3 bucket' and clarifies the optional prefix filter. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like aws_s3_list_buckets (buckets vs objects) and aws_s3_get_object (single retrieval vs listing).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description provides implicit guidance by documenting the 1000-object limit and continuation_token for pagination, indicating when pagination is needed. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance comparing this to get_object for single-object retrieval or alternative filtering approaches.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses what data is returned (names/metadata) and explicitly what is excluded (values), which is critical for a secrets management tool. However, it omits pagination behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements.
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 at 11 words total. Every element earns its place: the parenthetical '(names and metadata, not values)' is critical behavioral information despite the brevity. Front-loaded with the action verb and zero wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the straightforward nature of this listing tool and comprehensive input schema coverage, the description is adequately complete. It clarifies the return data semantically (names/metadata vs values), though it could briefly mention the output structure format.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage with clear documentation for all four parameters (profile, region, max_results, filters) and includes helpful examples for the filters parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description provides a specific verb ('List'), clear resource ('secrets in AWS Secrets Manager'), and crucial scope clarification ('names and metadata, not values') that distinguishes this from the sibling tool `aws_secretsmanager_get_secret_value`.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The parenthetical '(not values)' implies this should not be used for retrieving secret values, suggesting an alternative exists. However, it does not explicitly name the correct alternative tool (`get_secret_value`) or provide explicit when/when-not guidance.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully discloses what data is retrieved (status, input, output), acting as a surrogate for the missing output schema. However, it omits explicit safety information (read-only nature), permission requirements, or AWS API constraints that would aid invocation planning.
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 action verb and apportions exactly three nouns (status, input, output) to describe the return payload. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or tautology.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 100% input schema coverage and the absence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context by enumerating the conceptual return values (status, input, output). It adequately covers the tool's purpose for a read-only AWS describe operation, though explicit mention of read-only safety or IAM permission hints would elevate it to a 5.
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 100%, with all three parameters (profile, region, execution_arn) fully documented. The description mentions 'specific Step Functions execution' which loosely maps to the execution_arn parameter, but adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema definitions. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description provides a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('Step Functions execution'), and specifies the scope of data returned ('status, input, and output'). The word 'specific' effectively distinguishes this from sibling list operations like aws_sfn_list_executions, and the enumerated return values distinguish it from aws_sfn_get_execution_history which returns event history rather than current status/IO.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by specifying what data is returned (status, input, output), helping the agent infer when to use this versus execution history tools. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this over aws_sfn_get_execution_history or prerequisites like needing an execution ARN from a prior list 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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It valuably discloses the content of the returned history (steps, errors, I/O), but lacks operational disclosures: does not state this is read-only, requires Step Functions read permissions, or describe pagination behavior beyond the max_results parameter.
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 zero waste. Every clause earns its place: main clause defines action/resource, parenthetical clarifies specific data returned. 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.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description partially compensates by describing return content (steps, errors, I/O). However, it omits mention of the event structure format, pagination behavior, and that this is a read-only operation. Given 100% schema coverage and clear scope, it is reasonably complete but not exhaustive.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, establishing baseline 3. The description mentions 'execution' which loosely maps to execution_arn, but adds no syntax guidance, format details, or semantic relationships between parameters beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Excellent specificity: verb 'Get' + resource 'event history of a Step Functions execution' + scope clarification '(steps, errors, inputs/outputs)'. Clearly distinguished from sibling 'describe_execution' (which returns metadata) by emphasizing granular 'event history' with specific payload details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' guidance provided. However, the parenthetical content '(steps, errors, inputs/outputs)' implies a debugging/auditing use case distinct from high-level status checks, offering implied usage context without explicit directiv
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies read-only access, the description does not confirm this is non-destructive, disclose potential costs, rate limits, error handling (e.g., invalid queue URL), or required IAM permissions.
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 with zero waste. Front-loaded action verb followed by resource and specific examples. Every element earns its place—the examples are necessary to clarify what 'attributes' encompasses.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 100% schema coverage and a simple read operation, the description adequately covers what data is retrieved through specific examples. It lacks return format specification (no output schema present), but the attribute examples sufficiently indicate response content for this standard AWS getter pattern.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. However, the description adds value by illuminating the 'attribute_names' parameter through concrete examples (message count, delay, visibility timeout, dead-letter config, ARN), which helps understand what valid attribute values look like beyond the schema's generic 'Attributes to retrieve' description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' with clear resource 'SQS queue attributes' and distinguishes from siblings (aws_sqs_send_message, aws_sqs_receive_message, aws_sqs_purge_queue) by focusing on metadata retrieval rather than message operations. The colon-separated examples (message count, delay, visibility timeout, dead-letter config, ARN) provide concrete specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through concrete examples of when you need queue configuration data (checking message counts, visibility timeouts), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus other SQS operations or prerequisites like IAM 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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses what data is returned (agent status, platform info) but omits operational details like read-only safety, pagination behavior with max_results, or AWS rate limiting characteristics.
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 with zero waste. Front-loaded with action verb, resource clearly identified, and value proposition (agent status/platform info) included efficiently. No redundancy or filler text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Appropriate for a standard AWS describe operation with 100% schema coverage and 4 parameters. Mentions key return data fields despite missing output schema. Could improve by explicitly stating read-only nature or pagination behavior, but sufficient for agent selection.
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 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description adds minimal parameter context beyond schema, though 'List' verb implicitly supports the filters and max_results parameters. No additional syntax or format guidance provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific verb 'List' with clear resource scope 'EC2 instances managed by SSM' and specifies returned data 'agent status and platform info'. Effectively distinguishes from aws_ec2_describe_instances (general EC2) and other SSM tools like describe_parameters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides implied usage context through 'managed by SSM' qualifier, suggesting when to use this over general EC2 describe operations. However, lacks explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives for cases requiring different instance filtering.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden and successfully discloses the non-destructive nature ('without deleting') and timeout behavior ('messages return to the queue quickly'). Could improve by describing empty queue behavior or return payload structure.
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?
Two sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded with core action (receive/peek) and key distinction (no delete), followed by mechanism explanation (visibility timeout). Every word earns its place.
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?
Lacks description of return values (message content, receipt handles, etc.) despite having no output schema. However, adequately covers the operational behavior for a 5-parameter tool with complete schema documentation.
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 has 100% description coverage, establishing baseline 3. The description adds context linking 'short visibility timeout' to the peek behavior but doesn't add syntax, format details, or semantic meaning beyond the schema definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description provides a specific verb ('Receive (peek)') and resource ('messages from an SQS queue'), and distinguishes from siblings by explicitly stating 'without deleting them' and contrasting with consume/delete patterns implied by 'peek' terminology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage pattern ('peek' vs full consumption) by stating messages aren't deleted and return quickly, but lacks explicit 'when to use' guidance or named alternatives for actual message deletion/processing.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. References STS GetCallerIdentity API (read-only by nature) and mentions it returns account/role info, but omits permission requirements, output format structure, or 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two well-structured sentences: first defines the operation, second explains value proposition. Zero redundancy, appropriately front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Complete for a simple 2-parameter diagnostic tool. No output schema exists, but description implies identity return values by mentioning 'account and role.' Mention of STS API name helps experienced users infer expected response structure.
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 coverage is 100% with complete descriptions for 'profile' and 'region'. Description mentions 'for a profile' linking to the profile parameter but adds no syntax details or validation rules beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear specific verb 'Get' + resource 'IAM identity' with explicit AWS API reference 'STS GetCallerIdentity'. Uniquely distinguishes from 150+ sibling tools which operate on specific AWS services (EC2, S3, etc.) rather than identity verification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
States 'Useful for verifying which AWS account and role are active for a profile,' providing clear diagnostic context. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but this is a unique STS operation with no direct alternative on the server.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. It successfully clarifies that only IDs are returned, not full finding objects, which is key behavioral context. However, omits safety profile (read-only), pagination behavior, or rate limit considerations.
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?
Two sentences with zero waste. First sentence covers purpose and filtering capability; second provides sibling navigation. Every word earns its place with no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the nested object structure (finding_criteria) and lack of output schema, the description adequately compensates by clarifying the return type (IDs only). With 100% schema coverage and clear sibling relationship documented, this is sufficiently complete for tool selection.
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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all 5 parameters including examples for finding_criteria. Description mentions filtering by 'severity or type' which maps to the criteria parameter, but adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema already documents. Baseline 3 appropriate for high-coverage schemas.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states specific action ('List GuardDuty finding IDs') and distinguishes from sibling tool aws_guardduty_get_findings by clarifying this returns only IDs versus full details. Clear verb+resource combination.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly directs users to aws_guardduty_get_findings for retrieving full details, establishing clear workflow between list and get operations. Lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., obtaining detector_id first) or when not to use.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses mutation nature ('Blocked in --readonly mode'), return value type ('query execution ID'), and asynchronous pattern (separate check results step). Missing explicit details on IAM permissions, timeouts, or costs, but covers primary behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose statement, operational constraint, and return value/workflow. Front-loaded with action. Zero redundancy or filler. Efficient density of actionable information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Appropriate for an execution starter with 6 well-documented parameters and no output schema. Compensates for missing output schema by describing return value (query execution ID). Mentions workflow continuation. Minor gap on explicit async/queuing behavior or cost implications, but adequately 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 100% (all 6 parameters documented in schema). Description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but this aligns with the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high. No compensation needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb ('Start') + resource ('Athena SQL query execution'). Clearly distinguishes from siblings like aws_athena_get_query_results and aws_athena_list_databases by indicating this initiates execution rather than retrieving results or metadata.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Mentions '--readonly mode' constraint indicating when the tool is unavailable. Explicitly references sibling tool 'get_query_results' as the follow-up to check results, establishing the execution workflow. Lacks explicit contrast with list/describe alternatives but implies active execution use case.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It successfully discloses the exhaustive nature ('reads every item') and cost implications ('use sparingly'), but lacks critical operational details like pagination behavior (NextToken/LastEvaluatedKey), consistency model, or read capacity consumption that agents need for safe invocation.
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?
Three sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded with the action ('Scan a DynamoDB table'), followed by critical warnings and alternative guidance. Every clause earns its place in guiding agent selection.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters with nested objects and no output schema, the description adequately covers the primary selection criteria (operation type, cost warnings, and query alternative). However, it lacks return value documentation and pagination semantics which would be necessary for complete operational 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 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics, examples, or syntax guidance beyond what the schema already provides for the complex expression attributes and DynamoDB format objects.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Excellent specificity: 'Scan' is the exact API operation, 'DynamoDB table' identifies the resource, and '(reads every item)' clarifies the exhaustive scope. Critically, it distinguishes from the sibling aws_dynamodb_query tool by stating when to prefer that alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance: 'Use sparingly on large tables' warns against expensive operations, and 'Prefer query when you know the partition key' directly names the alternative tool and condition for using it. Covers both when-not-to-use and alternatives.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the data source (local AWS config files) and return structure (profile names + default regions). Could mention that it's read-only/safe, but the file paths provide substantial behavioral 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?
Two sentences, zero waste. First sentence establishes operation and data source; second sentence covers return values. Perfectly front-loaded for a schema-less tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Appropriate for a simple 0-parameter utility. Since no output schema exists, the description compensates by explicitly stating what gets returned (profile names and regions). Would be 5 if it mentioned error handling (e.g., missing config files).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters present; per rubric baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed by focusing entirely on the operation and return values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Excellent specificity: 'List all AWS profiles' provides clear verb and resource, and '(from ~/.aws/config and ~/.aws/credentials)' distinguishes this local config reader from the numerous AWS API operational siblings (ec2, s3, etc.). The scope is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or mention that this is a prerequisite for profile-aware AWS operations. However, the local-vs-API distinction is clear enough that an agent can infer usage. No explicit alternatives or prerequisites stated.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively explains the critical return format distinction (text files as strings, binary as base64) and partial download capability, though it omits error handling or permission requirements.
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?
Three sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with core purpose ('Download and return...'), followed by return format specifics and practical usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, the description appropriately compensates by detailing return value formats (string vs base64). With well-documented schema parameters (100% coverage), this provides sufficient completeness for an S3 get operation, though error scenarios could be mentioned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
While the schema has 100% coverage, the description adds valuable semantic context beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of the 'range' parameter (partial downloads of large files) and how the tool handles different content types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the specific action ('Download and return the content') and resource ('S3 object'), using precise verbs that distinguish it from sibling list/delete/put operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides internal usage guidance for the 'range' parameter ('Use 'range' for partial downloads of large files'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to select this tool vs siblings like aws_s3_list_objects or comparative alternatives.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It successfully discloses critical security behaviors: secrets are exposed in conversation plaintext and the tool requires write access (blocked in readonly). Missing only error handling behavior and return structure details.
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?
Three sentences with zero waste: purpose statement, security warning, and operational constraint. Perfectly front-loaded with the action verb, followed by critical cautions. No redundant or filler text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given high security sensitivity and lack of output schema, the description appropriately prioritizes disclosure of exposure risks and mode restrictions. Could be improved by noting retrieval failures (e.g., 'returns error if secret not found'), but adequately complete 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 100%, establishing baseline 3. The description does not add parameter-specific guidance (e.g., ARN format hints, version precedence rules), but the schema already comprehensively documents all five parameters including examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verb 'Retrieve' with specific resource 'actual secret value', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools 'describe_secret' (metadata) and 'list_secrets' (inventory) by emphasizing it returns the sensitive payload, not just configuration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit cautionary context ('Use with caution — the value will appear in the conversation') and operational constraint ('Blocked in --readonly mode'). Lacks explicit comparison text like 'For metadata only, use describe_secret instead', though the word 'actual' implies this distinction.
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?
With no annotations provided, description carries full burden. It successfully discloses the critical safety trait that values are not retrieved—essential for a secrets tool. Missing details on read-only nature, audit logging behavior, and side effects, but covers the most important behavioral constraint.
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?
Perfectly sized single sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded action ('Get metadata'), parenthetical specificity, and trailing exclusion clause ('without retrieving the value'). Every clause earns its place in distinguishing this tool's unique value proposition.
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?
Adequate for basic operation understanding, but leaves gap regarding the five optional parameters (profile, region, sensitive_access_*). Given the complexity of sensitive access controls and their apparent mismatch with a metadata-only operation, description should address why these parameters exist or when they are needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description adds significant semantic value by grouping output metadata types (rotation, replication, tags), helping the agent understand what 'describe' encompasses beyond the input schema. Does not explain the sensitive_access_* parameters, which appear mismatched with the 'no value retrieval' claim.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Excellent specificity: 'Get metadata' (verb) + 'secret' (resource) + explicit examples (rotation, replication, tags). Critically distinguishes from sibling aws_secretsmanager_get_secret_value by stating 'without retrieving the value', clarifying scope boundaries precisely.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear implicit guidance by stating the negative capability ('without retrieving the value'), signaling when to use this (metadata only) vs when to avoid. However, does not explicitly name the sibling alternative (aws_secretsmanager_get_secret_value) for value retrieval, which would strengthen selection confidence.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and successfully discloses the readonly mode security policy (mutation handling) and implicitly signals sensitive data handling via references to decrypted values. Minor gap: doesn't describe output format or pagination behavior typical of AWS API responses.
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?
Three sentences with zero waste: purpose first, sibling differentiation second, behavioral guardrails third. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a generic AWS API executor and lack of output schema, the description appropriately covers critical safety aspects (readonly mode, sensitive data acknowledgment). Minor gap: could note that return values vary by underlying AWS service/method.
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 has 100% description coverage (all 8 parameters documented), establishing baseline 3. Description mentions 'service, method, and parameters' generally but doesn't add semantic depth beyond the schema's 'boto3 API' references.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description provides a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('any AWS API call') and explicitly distinguishes from 200+ sibling tools with 'Use this for AWS operations not covered by other tools,' making the fallback/escape-hatch positioning crystal clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use ('Use this for AWS operations not covered by other tools') and details the readonly mode behavior with three specific cases (pass-through, dry-run, blocked), providing clear operational guardrails.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully communicates the mandatory regional constraint for CloudFront scope (us-east-1 requirement) which is not visible in the schema, though it omits explicit read-only classification.
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?
Two efficient sentences with zero waste: the first establishes the operation, the second provides essential scope constraints. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 4-parameter input with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the primary complexity (scope selection) and critical AWS-specific constraint (us-east-1 for CloudFront). Complete enough for invocation decisions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 100% schema coverage (baseline 3), the description adds significant semantic value by specifying the us-east-1 regional requirement for CLOUDFRONT scope and adding 'AppSync' to the list of supported resources, neither of which are in the schema's scope description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the action ('List') and resource ('WAF v2 Web ACLs'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'aws_wafv2_get_web_acl' (specific retrieval) and 'aws_wafv2_list_ip_sets' (different 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 Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear guidance on the critical 'scope' parameter values, explaining REGIONAL covers ALB/API GW/AppSync while CLOUDFRONT requires us-east-1. Lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over the 'get_web_acl' sibling, but the scope constraints offer strong usage context.
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/marcelobrake/aws-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/marcelobrake/aws-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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