AWS MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention pagination behavior, rate limits, authorization requirements beyond the profile parameter, or what the response structure contains.

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?

The four-word description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with no wasted text, though it borders on being overly terse given the lack of supporting annotations or output schema.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and the minimal description, critical information is missing regarding return values, pagination, and error conditions necessary for an agent to effectively use this tool.

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 for both parameters (profile and region), the schema already documents their purpose. The description adds no additional semantic context about when to override regions or select profiles, warranting the baseline score 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?

States the basic action (List) and resource (Kinesis data streams) but lacks specificity about what is returned (stream names, ARNs, or full objects) and does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'aws_kinesis_describe_stream' which likely retrieves detailed information about 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 like 'aws_kinesis_describe_stream' or 'aws_kinesis_list_shards', nor does it mention prerequisites such as AWS permissions or that this is typically a first step before describing specific streams.

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