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 burden. It adds value by disclosing what 'full details' encompasses (severity, type, resource, action), giving the agent insight into return content. However, it lacks operational context like rate limits, pagination behavior, or auth requirements beyond what's in the schema.

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 with zero waste. Every element earns its place: 'Get' (verb), 'full details' (scope), 'GuardDuty findings' (resource), and parenthetical fields (return value preview). Perfectly front-loaded.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description partially compensates by previewing return fields. However, for a 4-parameter AWS tool with complex sibling relationships, it should clarify the typical workflow (list → get) and whether this is a read-only 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% (all 4 parameters fully documented), establishing a baseline score of 3. The description implies the relationship between finding_ids and the detailed output but does not add syntax, format details, or usage patterns beyond the schema definitions.

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 effectively states the tool retrieves 'full details' for GuardDuty findings and distinguishes this from siblings like 'list_findings' or 'get_findings_statistics' by listing specific return fields (severity, type, resource, action). It lacks explicit sibling naming but implies differentiation through 'full details' scope.

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 (e.g., when to use list_findings first to obtain IDs), nor does it mention prerequisites like needing valid finding_ids from prior list operations.

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