AWS MCP Server

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.