AWS MCP Server

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.