AWS MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It effectively defines the scope of the operation by listing what configuration elements are retrieved (source, destination, buffering, compression, status), which adds transparency beyond the tool name. However, it omits operational details like required IAM permissions or rate limiting implications.

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?

Single, efficiently structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Get detailed config') and uses a colon-delimited list to specify scope. Every element earns its place; no repetition of structured data or redundant phrasing.

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 100% input schema coverage but no output schema or annotations, the description adequately compensates by detailing expected return content (the five config aspects). However, gaps remain: no mention of error conditions, required IAM permissions, or explicit differentiation from the sibling list operation.

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% for all three parameters (profile, region, delivery_stream_name). The description provides the baseline score of 3, as it does not add additional semantic context, parameter relationships, or formatting guidance beyond what the schema already clearly documents.

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 uses specific action verbs ('Get detailed config') and identifies the resource ('Firehose delivery stream'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'list_delivery_streams' by emphasizing 'detailed config' and enumerating specific aspects (source, destination, buffering, compression, status), though it could more explicitly differentiate the use case.

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 explicit when/when-not guidance or direct sibling comparison is provided. However, the specific enumeration of returned configuration aspects (source, destination, etc.) implicitly signals appropriate usage contexts—use when these specific details are needed versus a simple list.

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