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 lists the specific metadata categories returned (schema, throughput, indexes, status), which adds value. However, it omits behavioral traits such as read-only safety, authentication requirements, rate limiting, or error handling when a table does not exist.

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 nine words that front-loads the key information. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or waste.

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 the tool has 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the operation's purpose by listing the returned metadata categories. However, for an AWS API operation with potential error conditions and permission requirements, the description lacks contextual depth regarding execution behavior.

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% (all three parameters are well-documented in the input schema), establishing a baseline of 3. The description focuses on the operation's output rather than input parameters, neither adding to nor detracting from the parameter documentation.

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 what the tool retrieves (schema, throughput, indexes, status) using specific verbs and resource identification. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like aws_dynamodb_list_tables (which returns only table names) or aws_dynamodb_query/scan (which return data, not metadata), though the content implies this distinction.

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 aws_dynamodb_list_tables (when only names are needed) or when to prefer it over query/scan for metadata inspection. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.