AWS MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. It successfully clarifies that only IDs are returned, not full finding objects, which is key behavioral context. However, omits safety profile (read-only), pagination behavior, or rate limit considerations.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. First sentence covers purpose and filtering capability; second provides sibling navigation. Every word earns its place with no redundant information.

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 nested object structure (finding_criteria) and lack of output schema, the description adequately compensates by clarifying the return type (IDs only). With 100% schema coverage and clear sibling relationship documented, this is sufficiently complete for tool selection.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all 5 parameters including examples for finding_criteria. Description mentions filtering by 'severity or type' which maps to the criteria parameter, but adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema already documents. Baseline 3 appropriate for high-coverage schemas.

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?

Description states specific action ('List GuardDuty finding IDs') and distinguishes from sibling tool aws_guardduty_get_findings by clarifying this returns only IDs versus full details. Clear verb+resource combination.

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?

Explicitly directs users to aws_guardduty_get_findings for retrieving full details, establishing clear workflow between list and get operations. Lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., obtaining detector_id first) or when not to use.

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