AWS MCP Server

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.