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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.