AWS MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies read-only, it doesn't explicitly confirm safety, mention error handling for invalid detector IDs, disclosure of what 'configuration' and 'status' specifically entail, or authentication requirements beyond the profile parameter.

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 sentence is efficient and front-loaded. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, the extreme brevity leaves gaps that additional structure could fill without violating conciseness principles.

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?

Without annotations or output schema, the description should compensate by hinting at return value structure, error conditions, or prerequisite workflows. It mentions 'configuration and status' but doesn't clarify what data is returned or how to handle the required detector_id dependency.

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 has 100% description coverage with clear descriptions for profile, region, and detector_id. Description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('GuardDuty detector') with scope ('configuration and status'). Distinguishes implicitly from sibling 'list_detectors' by focusing on specific detector details, though explicit differentiation would strengthen it further.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus 'list_detectors' or 'get_findings'. The prerequisite workflow (needing detector_id from list_detectors) is only mentioned in the schema parameter description, not the main description.

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