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 '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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.