AWS MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate that this is a read-only operation, omits pagination behavior (despite having a 'limit' parameter), and provides no information about what data structure is returned or potential rate limiting.

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 concise at only 5 words with no redundancy. While efficient, this brevity contributes to under-specification rather than optimal information density. Every word earns its place, but additional sentences are needed for completeness.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a complex AWS service context, the description is insufficient. It omits critical AWS-specific context such as pagination tokens, the relationship between listing and describing streams, and expected output format.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage across all 4 parameters, the schema fully documents the inputs. The description adds no additional semantic context (e.g., explaining that 'limit' implies pagination, or how 'delivery_stream_type' filters work), warranting the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (Kinesis Data Firehose delivery streams) clearly. However, it fails to distinguish from sibling tool `aws_firehose_describe_delivery_stream` (singular), leaving ambiguity about when to list versus describe a specific stream.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites such as IAM permissions, or how it relates to the sibling describe_delivery_stream tool. No filtering advice beyond the schema.

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